This page looks plain and unstyled because you're using a non-standard compliant browser. To see it in its best form, please upgrade to a browser that supports web standards. It's free and painless.

CMLawLibraryBlog

The CM Law Library Blog seeks to inform the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law community about key legal education, research, practice, and law library news, with a particular focus on Cuyahoga County and Ohio as well as faculty research interests.

Lexis and Westlaw Order of Operation Chart

Sue Altmeyer, Electronic Services Librarian, sue.altmeyer@law.csuohio.edu | October 10, 2008 - 14:16

When constructing Westlaw and Lexis searches, it will help to know in what order the terms are being processed. The terms are not read simply from left to right, but according to an order of operations. The librarians at the University of Illinois put together this handy CHART showing the order in which operations are processed. On Westlaw, phrases in quotes are read first, then in the following order: OR, /n, /s, /p, AND, and lastly NOT (but not, %). Of course, you can alter the order of operation by putting parts of the search in parentheses.

For example:
negligen! and unnatural /3 accumulation /s snow or ice

Would be read: ( (unnatural /3 accumulation) /s (snow or ice)) and negligen!

 (More)

Legal Research & Writing:: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (0) AddThis Social Bookmark Button

When Substantial Compliance is Not Good Enough

Jan Novak, Associate Director jan.novak@law.csuohio.edu | October 10, 2008 - 07:47

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday that failure to explicitly enumerate the five constitutional rights waived by a defendant when offering a guilty plea renders the plea invalid. In State v. Veney, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-5200 the Court held that while substantial compliance is satisfactory for non-constitutional notifications, Ohio Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(c) “ requires that the defendant be advised of the right to a jury trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, and the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” At issue was the failure of the trial court to specifically advise the defendant of the state’s burden of proof.

Ohio and Local:: Comment (1) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (0) AddThis Social Bookmark Button

 
Accessible and Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS
Powered by pLog - Design by BalearWeb