See Also Legal Citation

This suggests that the cited authority constitutes additional material that supports the thesis less directly than what is indicated by “see” or “agreement”. “See also” can be used to introduce a case that supports the stated thesis and is different from the cases cited above. It is sometimes used to refer readers to authorities supporting a proposal when other supporting authorities have already been cited or discussed. An explanation of the relevance of the source in parentheses after a quote introduced by “see also” is recommended. For example, “. The omission of the same intellectual element in a firearms possession law similar to RCW 9.41.040 strongly suggests that the omission was intentional and that strict liability was intended. See generally State v. Alvarez, 74 Wash. App.

250, 260, 872 P.2d 1123 (1994) (the omission of the phrase “conduct” in the criminal counterpart of the civil anti-harassment law emphasized that “Parliament deliberately chose to criminalize a single act and not a single conduct.”) aff`d, 128 Wash.2d 1, 904 P.2d 754 (1995); see also State v. Roberts, 117 Wash.2d 576, 586, 817 P.2d 855 (1991) (use of particular legal language in one case and another language shows different legislative intentions) (citing cases). Source: Staat v. Anderson, 141 Wash.2d 357, 5 pp.3d 1247, 1253 (2000). From the Latin confer (“to compare”), this indicates that a quoted sentence differs from the main proposition, but is sufficiently analogous to be substantiated. An explanatory note in parentheses is recommended to clarify the relevance of the quotation. For example, it is precisely this kind of conjecture and haircut that the Supreme Court wanted to avoid when designing the brightness rule in Miranda. See Davis, 512 U.S., p. 461 (noting that when the suspect seeks advice, the advantage of the brightness rule is “clarity and ease of application” that “can be applied by officials in the real world without unduly impeding intelligence gathering” by forcing them to “make difficult judgments” with a “threat of repression, if you are mistaken”). A space must separate an introductory signal from the rest of the quotation, without an intermediate clause. See, for example, American Trucking Associations v.

United States EPA, 195 F.3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Quote signals have different meanings in different citation style systems in the United States. The two best-known citation manuals are The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation[1] and the ALWD Citation Manual. [2] Some state-specific style manuals also provide guidance on legal citation. The Bluebook citation system is the most comprehensive and widely used system of courts, law firms, and law journals. [ref. needed] In law, a quotation or introductory signal is a series of phrases or words used to clarify the authority (or meaning) of a legal quotation in relation to a proposition.

It is used in quotes about current authorities and indicates how those authorities relate to statements. Legal writers use citation signals to tell readers how citations support (or reject) their statements by organizing citations in a hierarchy of importance so that the reader can quickly determine the relative weight of a citation. Citation signals help the reader recognize the importance or usefulness of a reference when the reference itself does not provide sufficient information. Most citation signals are placed before the quote to which they refer. In the paragraph When authors do not report a quotation, the cited authority indicates the proposal, is the source of the quoted quotation or identifies an authority mentioned in the text; For example, one court noted that “the appropriate role of trial and appellate courts in the federal system in reviewing the size of jury verdicts is a matter for federal law”[3] or “Bilida was charged in state court with the offense of possession of raccoon without authorization.” [4] The first letter of a signal must be capitalized when it begins a quotation sentence. If it is contained in a quotation clause or phrase, it should not be capitalized. Parentheses may explain the relevance of an authority to the sentence in the text. Information in parentheses is recommended if the relevance of a cited authority would otherwise not be clear to the reader. Explanatory information takes the form of a present participle, a quoted sentence, or a short statement appropriate to the context.

Unlike other signals, it immediately follows the full quote. Usually short (say a sentence), it quickly explains how the quote supports or disagrees with the proposal. For example: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (voted Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)). When writing a legal argument, it is important to refer to primary sources.

To make it easier for readers to find these sources, it is desirable to use a standardized citation format. See generally Harvard Law Review Association, The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (18th edition 2005). Note, however, that some courts may require that all legal documents submitted to them conform to a different citation format. If, for example, is combined with another signal, the location of the combined signal is replaced by the non-e.g. Signal; The combined sign “see, for example” should be placed where the sign “see” would normally be. In a quote clause, quote strings can contain different types of signals. These signals are separated by semicolons. If more than one signal is used, they must correspond to this order.

Signals of the same basic type (supportive, comparative, contradictory, or background) are collected in a single set of citations, separated by semicolons. Signals of different types should be summarized in different quotation sentences. For example: “See” indicates that the cited authority supports the given proposal, but does not indicate it directly. Similar to the absence of a signal, used to indicate that the phrase derives from the cited authority. It may also be used to refer to an authority cited in support of the proposal. For example, prior to 1997, IDEA was silent on the issue of reimbursement to private schools, but the courts had granted such reimbursement as a “reasonable” remedy on the principles of equity under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, 105 p.Ct.

1996 (“[W]e are satisfied that by authorizing the court to grant `reasonable` relief, Congress will include retroactive restitution to parents as a remedy available in a legal case.”); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C) (“In any action brought under this paragraph, the court shall: provide such relief as the court deems appropriate.”). Place a parenthesis in front of an explanatory parenthesis as part of a quotation: Fed. R. Civ., p. 30(1) (emphasis added) (also stating that “[a] party may order an applicant not to respond. if necessary to preserve a privilege”). Shorter parenthestic sentences may be used when a full participle sentence is not required in the context of the quote: The Florida Supreme Court recently stated: “If the seller of a home knows facts that materially affect the value of the property that are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, The seller is obliged to communicate them to the buyer. Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2D 625, 629 (fla.

1985) (defective roof in a three-year-old house). If a source directly quotes or supports an argument (no signal or “see” before a quote), no parentheses are required. This signal compares two or more authorities that come to different conclusions for a declared proposal. Since the relevance of the comparison may not be obvious to the reader, The Bluebook recommends adding an explanation in parentheses after each authority. “compare” or “with” can be followed by more than one source, where “and” is used in between. Legal drafters in italics “compare”, “with” and “and”. “Compare” is used with “with”, with “with” preceded by a comma. If “and” is used, it is also preceded by a comma. [ref. needed] For example: However, to qualify the first element as “distortion”, the agreement must call into question the manner in which the state court resolved a manifest conflict in the wording of different laws. See Fla.

Stat. 102.166 (2001) (provides for manual recounts during the protest period) with 102.111 (where a time limit for manual recounts is probably too short); cf. section 102.112(1) (which states that the secretary “may” ignore late returns) and section 102.111(1) (which states that the secretary “shall” ignore late returns).

 32 مجموع الزوار,  2 زوار اليوم

هذا موقع يستخدم ملفات تعريف الإرتباط (كوكيز) لدراسة وتحليل استخدام الموقع الالكتروني وتحسين خدماتنا ووظائف الموقع. تم حفظ ملفات تعريف الإرتباط على جهازك عند تصفحك هذا الموقع. بإمكانك تغيير إعدادات ملفات تعريف الإرتباط من خلال متصفحك.