Citation Signal - Signals That Indicate Background Material

Signals That Indicate Background Material

• See generally

This signal indicates that the cited authority presents helpful background material related to the proposition. Legal scholars generally encourage the use of parenthetical explanations of the source material's relevance following each authority, using 'see generally.' A writer can use this signal with both primary and secondary sources.

Example: See generally Gonzalez v. Whitney & Rainey, 288 S.W. 45, 48 (Tex. 1972).

Example: It is a form of "discrimination" because the complainant is being subjected to differential treatment. See generally Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581, 614, 144 L. Ed. 2d 540, 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (the "normal definition of discrimination" is "differential treatment").

Example: In the aftermath of the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussion of the Second Amendment in Congress and in public discourse, as people debated whether **2810 and how to secure constitutional rights for newly free slaves. See generally S. Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876 (1998) (hereinafter Halbrook); Brief for Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae.

Example: See generally Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 245-249, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936); Schlesinger, supra, at 67-84.

Example: The IEP contains an evaluation of the child's current educational level, a statement of annual goals, a statement of the specific educational services to be provided, a projected timetable of services, and objective evaluative criteria and procedures for determining whether objectives are being achieved. See id. See generally Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181-82, 102 S.Ct. at 3037-38.

Example: Petitioners have raised an equal protection claim (or, alternatively, a due process claim, see generally Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 71 L. Ed. 2d 265, 102 S. Ct. 1148 (1982)), in the charge that unjustifiably disparate standards are applied in different electoral jurisdictions to otherwise identical facts.

Example: see generally W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 56 (5th ed. 1984) (discussing “special relationships” which may give rise to affirmative duties to act under the common law of tort).

Example: Some statutes impose more requirements, for instance by requiring defense counsel to subpoena the analyst, to show good cause for demanding the analyst's presence, or even to affirm under oath an intent to cross-examine the analyst. See generally Metzger, Cheating the Constitution, 59 Vand. L.Rev. 475, 481-485 (2006).