Design for Startup: Everything about design for startups https://t.co/HopCqCVjg2 by @umitakcn pic.twitter.com/zBGMis0fCT
Product Hunt (@ProductHunt) December 13, 2015
My goal in preparing orders, as it is for all of my legal writing, is to use regular grammatical English as much as possible. A secondary goal is to use actual statutory language as much as possible, rather than changing or paraphrasing it, which runs the risk of changing its meaning. When you prepare proposed orders, please keep these principles in mind.
As many of us recall from our civics lessons in school, the United States is a common law country. That means when judges issue opinions in legal cases, they often establish precedents that will guide the rulings of other judges in similar cases and jurisdictions. Over time, these legal opinions build, refine and clarify the laws that govern our land. For average citizens, however, it can be difficult to find or even read these landmark opinions. We think that's a problem: Laws that you don't know about, you can't follow — or make effective arguments to change.
Starting today, we're enabling people everywhere to find and read full text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts using Google Scholar. You can find these opinions by searching for cases (like Planned Parenthood v. Casey), or by topics (like desegregation) or other queries that you are interested in. For example, go to Google Scholar, click on the "Legal opinions and journals" radio button, and try the query separate but equal. Your search results will include links to cases familiar to many of us in the U.S. such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, which explore the acceptablity of "separate but equal" facilities for citizens at two different points in the history of the U.S. But your results will also include opinions from cases that you might be less familiar with, but which have played an important role.
We think this addition to Google Scholar will empower the average citizen by helping everyone learn more about the laws that govern us all. To understand how an opinion has influenced other decisions, you can explore citing and related cases using the Cited by and Related articles links on search result pages. As you read an opinion, you can follow citations to the opinions to which it refers. You can also see how individual cases have been quoted or discussed in other opinions and in articles from law journals. Browse these by clicking on the "How Cited" link next to the case title. See, for example, the frequent citations for Roe v. Wade, for Miranda v. Arizona (the source of the famous Miranda warning) or for Terry v. Ohio (a case which helped to establish acceptable grounds for an investigative stop by a police officer).
As we worked to build this feature, we were struck by how readable and accessible these opinions are. Court opinions don't just describe a decision but also present the reasons that support the decision. In doing so, they explain the intricacies of law in the context of real-life situations. And they often do it in language that is surprisingly straightforward, even for those of us outside the legal profession. In many cases, judges have gone quite a bit out of their way to make complex legal issues easy to follow. For example, in Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court justices present a fascinating and easy-to-follow debate on the legality of internment of natural born citizens based on their ancestry. And in United States v. Ramirez-Lopez, Judge Kozinski, in his dissent, illustrates the key issue of the case using an imagined good-news/bad-news dialogue between the defendant and his attorney.
We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of several pioneers, who have worked on making it possible for an average citizen to educate herself about the laws of the land: Tom Bruce (Cornell LII), Jerry Dupont (LLMC), Graham Greenleaf and Andrew Mowbray (AustLII), Carl Malamud (Public.Resource.Org), Daniel Poulin (LexUM), Tim Stanley (Justia), Joe Ury (BAILII), Tim Wu (AltLaw) and many others. It is an honor to follow in their footsteps. We would also like to acknowledge the judges who have built this cathedral of justice brick by brick and have tried to make it accessible to the rest of us. We hope Google Scholar will help all of us stand on the shoulders of these giants.
Posted by Anurag Acharya, Distinguished Engineer
| I. Plagiarism: Definitions and Scope.. | 780 |
| A. Definitions of Plagiarism.. | 780 |
| B. Unintentional Plagiarism.. | 783 |
| C. Self-Plagiarism: Borrowing from One's Own Prior Publications.. | 784 |
| D. Authorship: Giving Credit.. | 787 |
| E. The Distinction Between Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement.. | 790 |
| II. Plagiarism and Authors of Legal Documents: Professors, Judges, Practitioners, and Bar Applicants................................................................................................... | 793 |
| A. Plagiarism and Legal Academe.. | 793 |
| B. Plagiarism and the Judiciary.. | 800 |
| C. Plagiarism and the Practicing Attorney.. | 803 |
| D. Plagiarism and the Bar Applicant.. | 806 |
| III. Analysis and Recommendations.. | 807 |
| A. Developing Standards.. | 807 |
| B. Prior Publications.. | 810 |
| C. Authorship.. | 811 |
| D. Negligent Plagiarism.. | 812 |
| E. Plagiarism Detection Technology.. | 813 |
| IV. Conclusion.. | 815 |
Make it flow
What’s the secret to making your writing flow? Actually it’s no secret at all. Taylor explains at Men With Pens. (Hat tip to the [non]billable hour.)
“Well, let me retort.”1
A reader sent me this e-mail request:
I’m wondering if — in the future — you could comment in your blog on the process of preparing a reply brief in an appellate action. As a young attorney, I have been unable to find any guidance with regard to developing an effective reply brief. Are you aware of any resources or literature on writing reply briefs? It seems to be the most vexing part of my practice.
My response: You bet—that’s a great idea for a post. While I don’t have any original material to respond with, I’m happy to offer this collection of articles on reply briefs:
Everything we do as Reuters journalists has to be independent, free from bias and executed with the utmost integrity. These are our core values and stem from the Reuters Trust Principles. As a real-time, competitive news service whose reputation rests on reliability, we also value accuracy, speed and exclusivity. The way in which we, as Reuters employees, live these values is governed by the Reuters Code of Conduct. That code, with a few notable exceptions that apply specifically to journalists, governs the behaviour of all Reuters employees and is essential reading. As journalists, however, we have additional responsibilities if we are to fulfil the highest aspirations of our profession – to search for and report the truth, fairly, honestly and unfailingly.
This handbook is not intended as a collection of “rules”. Beyond the obvious, such as the cardinal sin of plagiarism, the dishonesty of fabrication or the immorality of bribe-taking, journalism is a profession that has to be governed by ethical guiding principles rather than by rigid rules. The former liberate, and lead to better journalism. The latter constrain, and restrict our ability to operate. What follows is an attempt to map out those principles, as guidance to taking decisions and adopting behaviours that are in the best interests of Reuters, our shareholders, our customers, our contacts, our readers and our profession.
The handbook, now in its second online edition and fully revised, is the work of no one individual. Dozens of journalists from text, television, pictures and from domestic as well as international services, have worked to bring it up to date. It builds on the work of colleagues, too many to number over the past 150 years, whose commitment
to the most ethical standards of our profession has made Reuters the outstanding news organisation it is today.
April 2008
