Our Blog

Welcome to our blog


Legal Footnote Abbreviations

Posted 7. November 2022 by Logistik-Express in Allgemein

The two most common forms of reference in legal writing are in-text references and footnotes. The main difference between them is that references in the text are usually included in the text itself, while footnotes are given at the bottom of the page. In general, in-text references are used for memos and facts, while footnotes are used for other legal texts. Here is the first example of the passage from the references section in the text above, which illustrates how to provide the same references using footnotes. The above is used when referring to the same source in a footnote that is not immediately above it. Ibid. is used when the above footnote refers to the same source. Ibid can be used after another ibid or after a supra. The footnotes should be placed on the same page as the accompanying text. Footnote numbers are superscripted, usually at the end of the sentence. If you are referring to a word, place the footnote number immediately after the word. As cited in Hughes v Page, 1998 CarswellBC 216 (WL Can) (SC) [Hughes], it is the majority decision in Hayes that determines the test used today in British Columbia.

Hayes` focus on profit-sharing is not limited to this case. In British Columbia, see also Hughes and Jenks/McCrory, [1998] BCJ No. 995 (QL) (SC). The leading case in British Columbia on the general test for the existence of a partnership is Hayes v. British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd (1992), 74 BCLR (2d) 120 (CA) [Hayes]. In determining whether a partnership has been established, the meaning of the words “joint for-profit business activity” must be considered (ibid.). Add the full citation to the case immediately after the corresponding text. If you want to address this case later, give the reader a short form in parentheses. This makes subsequent references much more concise. If this Act becomes Act, the ninth section of new subsection 7.0.2 (4) (“section 9”) of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, R.S.O.

1990, c E.9, will give the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to set prices for certain basic necessities during a declared emergency. While the constitutional review of paragraph 9 should be exhaustive, it may include an assessment of the pricing power. The courts have held that price agreements relating to matters within provincial jurisdiction under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act 1867 (U.K.), 30 and 31 Victoria, c 3, are laws relating to property and civil rights in the province. Patrick Monahan, Constitutional Law, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2002) lists price regulation as an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, provided that it is not related to section 91 matters (p. 313). This was confirmed in Home Oil Distributors v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1940] SCR 444 (“Home Oil”). In Home Oil, the impugned legislation allowed prices for coal or petroleum products to be fixed from time to time. The Act was considered intra vires of the province, although it concerned the activities of non-provincial enterprises operating in the province.

Hayes v British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd (1992), 74 BCLR (2d) 120 (CA) [Hayes]. If you cite a source multiple times, use ibid or supra after the first citation instead of repeating the full quote. Nor that what would be achieved would be the profit of the joint venture. Whether one of the parties made a profit depended on that party`s costs and that party`s revenues from that party`s market area (at 126). Here is an example of a passage illustrating how to provide references in the text: [It] requires the court to consider whether the conduct of the parties during the term of their joint project constituted a partnership relationship, despite their contrary intent and the terms of their agreement (Hayes, at p. 123). The parties must intend to form a partnership (Sproule v. McConnell, [1925] 1 DLR 982 (Saskatchewan CA)). The analysis to determine the intention of the parties is twofold. A court first examines the agreement between the parties and then examines the conduct of the parties (ibid.). Since there is no express contract in the circumstances at issue, the court would immediately turn to the second part of the analysis, which was described as follows: Here`s another example that includes legislation and secondary sources provided by Kim Nayyer, librarian and professor of law research and writing at the University of Victoria: The parties in Hayes failed the “joint venture for profit” test.

While the parties in this case all expected to receive something valuable from society, the Court concluded that this was the case.

--> -->