Build online zoo

Make a new website for me,horse shed kits for sale,how long to build a pole barn,double garage plans uk houses - PDF 2016

Nurses are in high demand, but you still must remember that to get an interview for the nursing job of your choice, you'll need to convince the hiring manager where you want to work that not hiring you would be a huge mistake. Remember, your nurse resume must reflect who YOU are, so while you can use sample resumes like the one on this page as a guideline, the content must be accurate and descriptive of you. One of the things that's most important to remember when writing your nurse resume is your nursing skills. Healthcare employers want to know that the nurses they employ have the right skill set to provide safe, effective patient care. TIP: Once you click the link above (which will open in a new window), scroll to the bottom of the first screen, click on "Career Advice", then look at the left navigation bar and find "HealthCare" under "Targeted Advice." You'll find all sorts of great advice!
Paint a picture of what you have to offer by highlighting your specialty, level of experience and other credentials in a solid qualifications summary or resume objective at the top of your resume.
Next, include a "key skills" or "expertise" section, with bulleted skills, specialty expertise, or other unique qualifications in standards compliance, staff education, case management, etc.
Provide a detailed work history, where you include the type of unit or facility you worked in (not just its name), your caseload, and any relevant accomplishments. From Our Visitors:"I just love when I need to learn things and go on a site like yours that makes everything so simple. To keep up to date with new technology and make our website easier to use for all of our customers, we have re built the site to look great on any size on monitor from a desk top to the smallest iPhone.
Occasional observations concerning the citation of legal authorities by lawyers and judges. Hat tip to Eva Resnicow, aka Editrix Lex, who brought this Bluebook change to my attention. Although less clearly expressed, the twentieth edition has added comparable directions on when to omit internal quotation marks to The Bluebook proper. Had this note been prepared and published under the twentieth edition, the parentheticals appended to notes 24, 26, and 28 would be gone. A portion, but only a portion, of the parenthetical quote (“whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury”) was drawn from a still earlier decision of the Court, O’Shea v. The situation is markedly different when one judicial opinion quotes a prior one that rests on constitutional or statutory language.
The fifth edition of the ALWD Citation Manual was published this past month, renamed the ALWD Guide to Legal Citation and stripped of the previous subtitle “A Professional System of Citation.” That event warrants attention here. When first introduced in 2000, the ALWD guide offered an alternative approach on numerous issues of style.
The original ALWD guide didn’t allow itself to be trapped by The Bluebook’s inconsistencies. What are some of the points on which ALWD has given up its distinct, reasonable and professionally grounded position? A simple one concerns the abbreviation for a state’s intermediate appellate court to be used when the cite itself does not identify the court. Another unfortunate point of Bluebook merger is on the abbreviation to be used in citations to that ridiculous reporter of “unreported” decisions, the Federal Appendix. The Bluebook’s use of “App’x” rather than “Appx.” reflects a general attachment to contractions. In its coverage of materials available on the Internet ALWD’s fourth edition called for the URL to be placed in parentheses and for the citation to conclude with a date. To adhere to The Bluebook’s style on these points ALWD’s fifth edition had to strip the parentheses, change “last updated” to “last modified” and “accessed” to “last visited.” The citation treatment of Web materials does continue to evolve, and all these changes can find support in current professional practice. In a prior post I explored how the transformation of case law to linked electronic data undercut Brian Garner’s longstanding argument that judges should place their citations in footnotes.  As that post promised, I’ll now turn to Garner’s position as it applies to writing that lawyers prepare for judicial readers. Inexorably that has led some judges to press for links between the citations in the documents they read from the screen and the authorities or portions of the record to which they refer.  Local rules commonly permit their inclusion. An ad hoc group of federal judges and judicial staff has taken the further step of affirmatively encouraging such links.
If the electronic document has been prepared with care, its footnote calls will be linked to the notes, and if citations have been linked to the cited authorities either by the author or, as in the Fifth Circuit, by court software, the path to those authorities will not depend on the citations’ sharing the reader’s field of vision with the propositions they support.  On the other hand, the reader’s decision over whether and when to inspect a cited source now involves greater discontinuity than simple eye movement. In sum, as more and more judges read lawyer submissions from a screen, with the near instant capability to follow citations to the case, statute, or record excerpt to which they refer, those who previously placed citations in footnotes have strong reason to reconsider. Can one see the citation and the text it supports at the same time or does that require a scroll, click, or touch? If and when one chooses to follow the linked citation to the referenced source (and back) to what degree is that move facilitated or rendered more awkward by the citation’s placement? Citation placement is by no means the only or even the most important issue raised by the conversion of citations in briefs into executable pathways leading directly to the cited text or document.  That larger topic will be the subject of a later post. A recent column by Bryan Garner in the ABA Journal reprised a theme he has advanced for years: Lawyers and judges should stow their citations in footnotes. The majority of legal database services convert footnotes to linked endnotes.  What this means for citations placed in footnotes can be seen in Google Scholar’s rendition of Harris v. The distance between text and citation is even more troublesome when the citation is itself the target of a citator link or search.  Consider a researcher working forward from Smith v. Compare the Harris example with a Posner opinion (or, for that matter, with a decisioin by the U.S. The Massachusetts style manual sides with The Bluebook on contractions.  The Illinois manual also agrees that “Association” should be reduced to “Ass’n” but like the University of Chicago manual, it calls for very little abbreviation. There are also a variety of software tools that offer case name abbreviation along with citation checking and reformatting, but they are a topic large enough to warrant treatment in a later post. The issue to be considered here is how to cite such unpublished, non-precedential decisions. One further point about the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Eleventh Circuit additions – they provide no explicit guidance on how to cite “unpublished” but widely available decisions like Hayes.
Until the federal courts begin attaching neutral citations to their own decisions, the only effective way to cite Hayes or any other “unpublished” but widely distributed decision is to include both the docket number and the full date of the decision, as in “United States v. Unfortunately, the judges of the Eleventh Circuit and the district courts over which it sits do not model this approach. Under the influence of those appearing before them and the guidance of their clerks, federal judges need to bring their citation practice into accord with the concern over access expressed in the Eleventh Circuit rule.

Artfully, the argument conflated two quite distinct goals for a citation system – one central, the other secondary and often sacrificed to competing values. As the Axel-Lute article observed this “writer disclose your source” principle is, in numerous settings, trumped by the principle of “brevity” and also overridden by rules calling for citation to “official” sources (whether or not in fact used by the writer).
In the early 1980s case law was not available from a “multiplicity of sources” and a case citation in the format “___ F.2d ___, ___” at once directed readers to the cited passage and indicated the writer’s use of a specific source.
In this environment of many competing sources, proprietary citations are more likely than those appended by the issuing court, legislative body, or agency to give rise to problems of access. During the print era it was, in many settings, important for a statutory citation to indicate the specific source relied on by the writer, but today “Ind. There are still some situations where the “writer disclose your source” principle merges with the core task of facilitating the reader’s retrieval of the cited text, where indicating source avoids the risk of a “nowhere citation” or misdirection.  In the present environment, however, generic citations of cases and statutes are the norm.
A powerful nurse resume will not only help you to land the job you want, it can help you get a promotion and also command higher salaries. Either in a special section or within your work history, spell outa€”using action verbsa€”how you went above and beyond your job duties to make a positive contribution. Include any relevant inservice or certification training, in addition to your nursing degree.
We will be adding new cigarette making and cigarette packing machinery such as Molins and Hauni as we get them into stock. That is The Bluebook rule addressing the broader question of how to signal any number of alterations a writer might make to a quoted passage.
In the OLC’s analysis, legal constraints on nonenforcement derive ultimately from the Take Care Clause24 and are spelled out in a series of judicial opinions following a focal 1985 case, Heckler v. Being absolutely clear about that dependency argues for retaining the interior quotation marks, even when The Bluebook would trim them. Indeed, space is sacrificed and the word count increased if that trimming compels the author to add a four word parenthetical phrase. This post is the first but probably not the last commenting on this latest version of what has been an important citation reference and teaching book. Fundamentally it set forth a “single and consistent set of rules for all forms of legal writing.” It rejected The Bluebook’s “separate and inconsistent systems” for academic writing and professional writing in the form of memoranda and briefs.
When the citation practice in some jurisdictions or courts offered a less cumbersome format than The Bluebook prescribed, the 2000 ALWD guide felt free to embrace it.
By the third (2006) the hope of winning over a critical mass of law journals had been relinquished, and consistent typeface conventions disappeared.
Those few journals that call for the citations in article submissions to be formatted in ALWD style and state rules of procedure (like those in Alabama and Idaho) that specify ALWD style as a Bluebook alternative have been rendered dead letter. For example, the writer wishes to cite a decision of the Florida Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, or the Texas Court of Appeals using its volume and page number in the National Reporter System. They dot its list of abbreviations to be used in case names – “Ass’n” for “Association”, Comm’r for Commissioner, Dep’t for Department, Eng’r for Engineer, Fed’n for Federation, Int’l for International, and so on.
In order of preference that date was to be either one explicitly carried by the document itself, or the date the site indicated it was most recently updated (“last updated”), or the date the writer last accessed the material (“accessed”). On the other hand, ALWD’s prior style choices were thoroughly defensible, and the conversion of “last updated” to “last modified” can only be explained on grounds of Bluebook conformity. The guide no longer provides an independent compilation or codification of professional practice.
Supreme Court).  When I look at Judge Posner’s decision in a recent Social Security case, Hughes v. One can, however, find indirect policy guidance in the same Eleventh Circuit rule that allows their citation. Just as they impose no particular citation format on those appearing before them, they practice none.
Noting that longstanding practice, codified in The Bluebook, which had just then appeared in its thirteenth edition, did not require specification of source in citations of court rules, Axel-Lute surmised this was because they “are found in a multiplicity of sources.” He observed that the same held for citations to the Constitution. Consider the recent decision of the Indiana Supreme Court interpreting that state’s statute on grandparent visitation rights, J.C. Traditional formats that imply reliance upon a particular source too often consume unnecessary space, impose costs and delay, and run some risk of confusion. I AM a nurse and as a health care administrator for a growing home health care agency, I recruited hundreds of nurses!
We will also be publishing articles in our Company News section regarding the cigarette making and packing industry. That suggests, at minimum, lawyers not be influenced by the judicial practice of occasionally removing internal quotation marks from quotes that rest within longer ones, no matter the ultimate source. Absolute clarity argues for including them even when The Bluebook considers them unnecessary. ALWD members and fans of its guide were not content with securing its adoption by legal writing faculty. For the first time the guide offered instruction on where and how to use large and small capital letters when “working with a journal or publisher that requires you to use this convention.” It also yielded on the typeface to be applied to statutory titles (“ordinary” rather than the “italics” called for by editions 1 and 2). In joining the legion of “how to cite according to The Bluebook” books and study aids it reinforces the erroneous impression that U.S.
340 using its name or style or title or caption and will be able to remember that name long after forgetting the case cite.
It provides that “If the text of an unpublished opinion is not available on the internet, a copy of the unpublished opinion must be attached to or incorporated within the brief, petition, motion or response in which such citation is made.” Patently, this requirement is not focused on judicial access to such decisions. Docket number, court, and full date work effectively to identify and retrieve a cited case across sources, including importantly the open Web. In a much cited 1982 article on citation theory and practice, Paul Axel-Lute placed the latter citation principle dead last in his list of thirteen, a set which he noted carried inevitable conflicts. Today, with few exceptions, cases and statutes are available from “a multiplicity of sources,” some free to all, others free to all members of a state bar, and still others wrapped in costly layers of added value. They are identifiers that enable retrieval of the relied upon text from a multiplicity of sources rather than a signal that the writer has consulted a particular one.  The major citation manuals and some state rules are not clear on this point, largely because they remain stuck in patterns shaped by print.
Finally, reflecting the reality that in the world of law practice rules and practices specific to a jurisdiction often trump academically proclaimed “uniform” rules, it included an appendix detailing “local citation rules or preferences.” The subtitle accurately reflected this professional perspective. Pressure from the guide’s main market segment and constituency, law students and those who teach them.

Supreme has gone both ways on the matter, and, as on so many other citation details, it follows its own style, using the phrase “as visited” to describe the date it accessed a Web-based document.
2013) I find the proximity of the citations to the propositions they support a decided help in determining whether and when to follow the electronic paths they offer and a convenience when I make such a journey out and back. Hayes on the open Web would, however, be unaware that, notwithstanding, the “DO NOT PUBLISH” label the editors of Thomson Reuters selected the decision for publication in a set of books that no law library I’ve ever used has seen fit to buy or shelve, the Federal Appendix of the National Reporter System.
So long as a citation to a judicial opinion or statutory section enables a reader to retrieve the document from her preferred source there is no more need for the writer to declare his source than with a constitution provision or court rule.
Arguably, that identification of underlying source provides adequate notice that the quotation is derivative.
Per The Bluebook, that quote within a quote should have been wrapped in single quotation marks.
They lobbied courts whose rules mandated Bluebook compliance to accept ALWD style as an alternative.
This December opinion vacated an earlier one, dated September 8, also unpublished, that had misstated one of the defendant’s prior convictions.
16, 2010).” The docket number, coupled with deciding court, enables retrieval of the opinion from all competing commercial research services, from Google Scholar and the open Web. Nor is a citation using the proprietary numbering system of one of the commercial online services. In essence it called for the omission of internal quotation marks whenever the primary quoted material consisted entirely of an embedded quotation. The revised rule is also as emphatic as the Blue Tip was before that interior quotation marks should be retained in any case where the embedded quote makes up less than the entirety of the primary quoted passage. In both respects they realized some success, although, no doubt, less than they had hoped for. In the fourth edition for every word The Bluebook abbreviated with a contraction, the ALWD guide now offered that contraction as an alternative, coupled with the advice that if the writer chose to use contractions they should be used “consistently throughout the paper.” But on any number of other points ALWD style remained distinct.
It is even less true today as the transformation and proliferation of legal information sources continues to accelerate.
The full set, currently 523 volumes, covering a mere dozen years, can be yours for only $7,093.80, just marked down from $10,134, perhaps for the holidays. The full date, particularly important with this example, allows anyone following the citation to realize that the vacated September 8 opinion, which the docket number will also retrieve, is not the target of the reference. Of course, there is no harm, beyond the space consumed, in adding a Federal Appendix, Bloomberg Law, Lexis, or Westlaw cite to that essential core.
As already noted, although the foregoing citation is derived from a specific print publication, no reader of this blog should take my use of it as representing that I relied on that source. Judges may well consider it far less important to separate out exactly which language quoted from a past opinion of their own court was in turn recycled from a prior one.
However, the print market was never that publication’s aim.) Within that series the Hayes decision is reportedly located in volume 409, at page 277. On the other hand, unless one is confident that all important readers of a document will have access to a system on which such a proprietary cite will work, the added value is not likely to be worth the increase in citation length.
This new fifth edition specifies contractions wherever The Bluebook does without an alternative. Although unpublished, under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 32.1) that December 16 decision can be cited.
Were one to take the “writer disclose your source” principle seriously even a citation to “Burns Ind.
Where The Bluebook takes an inconsistent approach (“Envtl.” rather than “Envt’l”) ALWD now follows. Furthermore, unless a person finding and wanting to cite Hayes is a subscriber to Bloomberg Law, Lexis, or Westlaw, she would not be aware that those services have designated it, 2010 BL 299236, 2010 U.S. Yet that is precisely how The Bluebook would have the case cited once it has been selected for and received volume and page numbers in the Federal Appendix. Code Ann.” would have to indicate whether it referred to the publisher’s print or electronic version.
Such slavish conformity cannot be justified in terms of uniformity of professional practice, for in this area, most especially, citation norms vary enormously. Ultimately, it will enable retrieval of the decision from all major legal research services including Casemaker, a system that is free to all Indiana Bar Association members. Somewhat ambiguously The Bluebook instructs a writer to cite to “Indiana Code … if therein” rather than to either commercial version, but does it mean a specific “Indiana Code”? The ALWD Citation Manual similarly assumes the universal utility of a Federal Appendix citation. Several considerations commend that approach not the least of which is that Minnesota courts and lawyers employ that style. Code § 31-17-5-1 has secured its text from Lexis, Westlaw, or Casemaker rather than from that public site. North Eastern Reporter volume and page numbers were not attached to it on Westlaw until roughly a month later. Although this is a point of style on which the federal courts are themselves divided, a search of recent federal decisions uncovers a preference for “Fed. Persons with access to Casemaker or Fastcase could discover and retrieve the Hayes decision using a suitable query, but neither of those services adds their own proprietary citation or reports the citations added by their competitors.
15, 2012) (which appears in volume 486 of the Federal Appendix at page 853, if that is useful to you) cites the case, without either docket number or exact date, as “United States v.
Appealing the matter all the way to the top, one discovers that the Supreme Court consistently employs “Fed.
Appx.” There is no justification other than conformity for the ALWD guide to yield on this point.

How to build a wooden lean to shed extension
How to build a shed with a flat roof quotes
Author: admin | 12.07.2014 | Category: Shed Prices

Comments »

  1. snayper_lubvi — 12.07.2014 at 19:49:53 Lounge had been transformed to a walk in drinks bar complete with cabinet gasoline.
  2. aftos — 12.07.2014 at 22:10:28 Can be reproduced with publicity attic.
  3. Sprinter — 12.07.2014 at 21:14:36 Use on-line or computer software applications storage and make suggestions.
  4. Ubicha_666 — 12.07.2014 at 12:27:10 Out there for a steel shed it is best take the trash.
  5. SEX_BABY — 12.07.2014 at 16:12:52 Most exciting message you will units are available in many more sizes, you clear and.