Preparation.

. . . .

(d) Citations. All citations of cases shall be by name of the case as well as by volume, page and year of the Official Report. Cases not yet reported shall be cited by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court case number and date of decision.

Hawaii: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s) Contents | Index | Help | < | > Examples from State v. Kotis, 91 Haw. 319, 984 P.2d 78 (1999)

. . . .

On September 10, 1992, Kotis was indicted for (1) murder in the second degree, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701.5(1) (1993), (2) kidnapping, in violation of HRS § 707-720(1)(e) (1993), and (3) terroristic threatening in the first degree, in violation of HRS § 707-716(1)(d) (1993). The charges arose from an incident that occurred on or about September 7, 1992, in which Kotis allegedly threatened his wife, Lynne Kotis, and her companion, Gregory Wittman, with a knife, restrained Lynne with intent to terrorize her, and caused Lynne's death while in possession of a firearm.

. . . .

The Department of Health appears to have arrived at the same conclusion, as demonstrated by HAR § 11-175-45 (1988), the rule promulgated to enforce HRS § 334E-2. That rule provides in relevant part . . . .

70 Haw. 206, 208, 767 P.2d 1238, 1239-40 (1989) (citing Abramson v. Board of Regents, University of Hawaii, 56 Haw. 680, 548 P.2d 253 (1976), and Aguiar v. Hawaii Hous. Auth., 55 Haw. 478, 522 P.2d 1255 (1974)); Baldeviso v. Thompson, 54 Haw. 125, 129, 504 P.2d 1217, 1221 (1972) (citing State v. Kimball, 54 Haw. 83, 503 P.2d 176 (1972)).

. . . . Hawaii R. App. P. 28, http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/court_rules/rules/hrap.htm#Rule%2028. Rule 28. BRIEFS . . . . (b) Opening Brief.

Within 40 days after the filing of the record on appeal, the appellant shall file an opening brief, containing the following sections in the order here indicated:

(1) A subject index of the matter in the brief with page references and a table of authorities listing the cases, alphabetically arranged, text books, articles, statutes, treatises, regulations, and rules cited, with references to the pages in the brief where they are cited. Citation to Hawai‘i cases since statehood shall include both the state and regional reporters. Citation to foreign cases may be to only the regional reporters. Where cases are generally available only from electronic databases, citation may be made thereto, provided that the citation contains enough information to identify the database, the court, and the date of the opinion.

Idaho: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation Rule(s)Contents | Index | Help | < | >

Examples from Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Res., 143 Idaho 862, 154 P.3d 433 (2007)

. . . .

In 1994, pursuant to statutory authority found in Idaho Code sections 42-603 and 42-1805, the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources (Director), promulgated the CM Rules to provide the procedures for responding to delivery calls "made by the holder of a senior- priority surface or ground water right against the holder of a junior-priority ground water right in an area having a common ground water supply." IDAPA 37.03.11.001. Thereafter, the CM Rules were submitted to the Idaho Legislature in 1995 pursuant to I.C. § 67-5291.

. . . .

In an appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the standard of review is the same as the standard used by the district court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. State v. Rubbermaid Incorporated, 129 Idaho 353, 355-356, 924 P.2d 615, 617-618 (1996); Thomson

v. Idaho Ins. Agency, Inc., 126 Idaho 527, 529, 887 P.2d 1034, 1036 (1994). Upon review, the Court must liberally construe facts in the existing record in favor of the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.; Bonz v. Sudweeks, 119 Idaho 539, 541, 808 P.2d 876, 878 (1991). Summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765, 769, 820 P.2d 360, 364 (1991). If there are conflicting inferences contained in the record or reasonable minds might reach different conclusions, summary judgment must be denied. Bonz, 119 Idaho at 541, 808 P.2d at 878.

. . . .

The court further justified its incorporation of this case's facts into its analysis by asserting that I.C. § 67-5278 "contemplates the use of a factual history of a case when determining a rule's validity." Idaho Code section 67-5278 provides a means by which a party may gain standing before a district court, prior to exhausting administrative remedies, in order to seek a declaratory judgment on a rule's validity. The statute requires that the rule itself or its

"threatened application" interfere with or impair, or threaten to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner. I.C. § 67-5278; Rawson v. Idaho State Bd. Of Cosmetology, 107 Idaho 1037, 1041, 695 P.2d 422, 426 (Ct.App. 1985).

. . . .

Idaho S. Ct. Internal R 15,

http://www.isc.idaho.gov/rules/Internal_Rules_ISC_2008.pdf.

(e) Uniform System of Citation.

Citations appearing in opinions shall be in conformity with statutory provision of this state, the rules of this Court and if not therein covered, in conformity with the current edition of “A Uniform System of Citation,” published and distributed by the Harvard Law Review

Association, or the “ALWD (Association of Legal Writing Directors) Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation.”

Illinois: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s) Contents | Index | Help | < | > Examples from Hines v. Dep't of Pub. Aid, 221 Ill. 2d 222, 850 N.E.2d 148 (2006)

. . . .

Following briefing and a hearing, the circuit court entered a detailed order, recounting the pertinent facts of the case and reviewing the governing law. In the circuit court's view, section 5-13 of the Public Aid Code (305 ILCS 5/5-13 (West 2002)) and 89 Ill. Adm. Code §

. . . .

Where, as here, the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce it as written. It may not annex new provisions or substitute different ones, or read into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions which the legislature did not express. People ex rel. Department of Professional Regulation v. Manos, 202 Ill. 2d 563, 568, 782 N.E.2d 237, 270 Ill. Dec. 43 (2002), quoting Bronson v. Washington National Insurance Co., 59 Ill. App. 2d 253, 261-62, 207 N.E.2d 172 (1965). Moreover, as the appellate court correctly observed, it is a basic principle of statutory construction that "'the enumeration of exceptions in a statute is construed as an exclusion of all other exceptions.'" 358 Ill. App. 3d at 232, quoting People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264, 286, 786 N.E.2d 139, 271 Ill. Dec. 881 (2003). In cases such as this, where a statute specifies exceptions to a general rule, no exceptions other than those designated will be recognized. In re Estate of Tilliski, 390 Ill. 273, 283, 61 N.E.2d 24 (1945). The appellate court was therefore correct to conclude that the Medicaid Act cannot be construed as permitting the state to look to the estate of a spouse of a recipient of medical assistance for reimbursement of costs correctly paid on the recipient's behalf.

. . . .

Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 6,

http://www.state.il.us/court/SupremeCourt/Rules/Art_I/ArtI.htm#6.