Identifying the rules that apply to a particular legal issue in your jurisdiction requires legal research. The legal research process involves not only finding legal authorities, but also determining their importance. Regardless of your audience or the type of legal document you write, remember that the use of authority only supports your analysis and arguments. McGregor and Adams, op. cit. cit., p. 88; Sorkin, op. cit. cit., p. 488. When you use and quote authority, you are telling the reader that the ideas in your paper are not only your own ideas and conclusions, but also that your analysis and arguments are in fact supported by statutes such as court opinions, statutes, regulations, or other sources (e.g., legislative history). See Sorkin, op. cit.

cit., p. 488. If you use a secondary source and cite that source in your paper, let the reader know that a lawyer supports your analysis. Therefore, the use of authority helps to make your analysis stronger, more credible and more persuasive. Take full advantage of this tool. In addition to these journalists, there are other authors who are held in great admiration and respect by students of common law. These are Glanvill and Bracton, Britton and Fleta, Hengham and Littleton, Statham, Brooke, Fitzherbert and Staundeforde, with a few others of ancient date; whose treaties are cited as authority and are proof that in the past there have been cases in which this or that point has been established, which have now become regulated and first principles. One of the last of those methodical writers of the day, whose works before the courts have intrinsic authority and do not depend on the strength of their quotations from older authors, is the same learned judge just mentioned, Sir Edward Coke; [1] Fictions, Lies, and the Authority of Law deals with the legal, political, and cultural difficulties arising from the crisis of authority in the modern world.

With a basic understanding of the structure of the U.S. legal system, available sources of law, and the application of the weight of authority, you`ll be prepared to evaluate the resources you`ll find in your legal research. “In this provocative and insightful work, one of our most insightful legal thinkers explores the nature of real authority. Steven Smith reveals that a loss of authority would be anything but liberating. Instead, it provides an optimistic account of how real authority exists and gives us a solid place to stand. – Richard Garnett, co-editor of First Amendment Stories Primary authority (the law) can be mandatory or persuasive, depending on: 1. Jennifer M. Chacón, Border Exceptionalism in the Era of Moving Borders, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 129 (2010) (most internal citations omitted) — *134 While the Fourth Amendment governs interactions between government officials and civilians at the border, restrictions on official actors at the border are in practice less severe than in many other contexts. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment`s adequacy test balances the interests of government with the privacy rights of individuals.

In the context of border policing, which the courts have linked to the protection of sovereignty and sanctity of national borders, the courts have treated the government`s interest as *135 extraordinarily strong. As a result, courts have a more permissive standard of what constitutes a reasonable act on the part of a state actor in international border surveillance than in many other police contexts. The Supreme Court has often treated the international border as a physical sphere where the government`s important interests in controlling the flow of goods (especially illicit drugs) and people entering the country completely overshadow individual privacy interests. The mandatory authorities as opposed to the persuasive authorities that the courts must follow are called binding (or binding) authority. The authorities that the courts can follow if they are persuaded to do so are called persuasive (or non-binding) authority. These books are treated by the courts as authoritative statements of the law, as they were at the time they were written, solely on the basis of the authority of their authors. Therefore, they will be treated as authoritative statements of this Act, unless it is proved that the law has changed and can be cited and relied upon as such in the courts. State courts apply state laws and regulations and follow state precedents. For example, South Carolina courts must apply South Carolina laws, regulations, and jurisprudence. If a South Carolina court has not ruled on a particular point of law, it may be persuaded by a decision of another state court. The main authority is the law, which includes constitutions, statutes and ordinances, rules and regulations, and jurisprudence. These powers form the rules that the courts follow.

You must identify not only the sources you will use, but also the parts of the sources you will use and the purpose for which you will use the source, such as general information, legal rules, direct quotations, paraphrases or summaries, or any other use of the source. See Deborah B. McGregor & Cynthia M. Adams, The International Lawyer`s Guide to Legal Analysis and Communication in the United States 90-91 (2008) (see Chapter 6, “The U.S. Concept of Plagiarism and the Proper Attribution to Authority”). When you decide how to use the different sources, you realize that direct quotes should only be used when absolutely necessary. Gerald Lebovits, Do`s, Don`ts, and Maybes: Legal Writing Do`s – Part II, 79 N.Y. St. B.J. 64, 54 (2007). Too many direct citations cause several problems, including writing, which lacks the author`s analysis and seems too choppy.

See also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges 127-29 (2008). In particular, “quoting leaves little, if any, room for the author`s own ideas, thoughts, and analyses.” McGregor and Adams, op. cit. cit., p. 94. As you move through the “Use of Authority” selection process, you may find that you choose to omit large parts of a source because these parts are not needed for the purposes of the document being created. However, make sure that any information you use from a source is properly cited, paraphrased or summarized, and that the information is not taken out of context.

Do not mislead in any way. See David E. Sorkin, Practicing Plagiarism, 81 fig. B.J. 487, 488 (1993). Primary and secondary legal researchers use two types of authority called primary and secondary authority. As Smith argues, good legal fiction must be both plausible and useful, otherwise we have little reason to play with it. But what makes fiction plausible? The alternative and best use of authority is to avoid the Chacón language altogether.

If possible, use primary authority to support an argument rather than relying on secondary authority. Since this sentence is about Arnold Holding, it would be better to quote or paraphrase Arnold`s involvement directly from the statement, and then quote Arnold only. If you avoid the language of Chacón`s article, then your paraphrase or quote comes directly from the opinion, and only one quote about the case would be necessary. That would be a more convincing and better use of authority. Federal law For matters of federal law, federal courts apply federal laws and regulations, as well as precedents set by federal courts in their circle. If a federal court in one county has not ruled on a point of law, it may be persuaded by a decision of another federal county. “1. Acknowledge someone else`s direct use of words. 2.

Recognize any paraphrases of someone else`s words. 3. Acknowledge the direct use of someone else`s idea. 4. Confirm a source if your own analysis or conclusion is based on that source. 5. Confirm a source if your idea about legal advice comes from a source other than the opinion itself. “[The intelligence, clarity and openness of this book] make it a good example of what a work of legal theory should be. Although legal authority has been much studied, Smith sheds new light on it.

– The Review of Politics If a court is faced with a legal dispute, if a previous court has ruled on the same or closely related issue, the court will make its decision in accordance with the decision of the previous court.