<P> This signal, an abbreviation of the Latin exempli gratia, means "for example". It tells the reader that the citation supports the proposition; although other authorities also support the proposition, their citation (s) may not be useful or necessary . This signal may be used in combination with other signals, preceded by an italicized comma . The comma after e.g., is not italicized when attached to another signal at the end (whether supportive or not), but is italicized when e.g. appears alone . Examples: Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life . See, e.g., Abele v. Markle, 342 F. Supp. 800 (D. Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72 - 56 . Unfortunately, hiring undocumented laborers is a widespread industry practice . E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Bellefonte Ins. Co., 548 F. Supp. 1329, 1331 (E.D. Pa. 1982). </P> <P> "Accord" is used when two or more sources state or support the proposition, but the text quotes (or refers to) only one; the other sources are then introduced by "accord". Legal writers often use accord to indicate that the law of one jurisdiction is in accord with that of another jurisdiction . Examples: "(N) ervousness alone does not justify extended detention and questioning about matters not related to the stop ." United States v. Chavez - Valenzuela, 268 F. 3d 719,725 (9th Cir. 2001); accord United States v. Beck, 140 F. 3d 1129, 1139 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Wood, 106 F. 3d 942, 248 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v. Tapia, 912 F. 2d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1990). "...The term' Fifth Amendment' in the context of our time is commonly regarded as being synonymous with the privilege against self - incrimination". Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 163, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed . 964 (1955); accord In re Johnny V., 85 Cal . App . 3d 120, 149 Cal. Rptr. 180, 184, 188 (Cal . Ct . App . 1978) (holding that the statement "I'll take the fifth" was an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege). </P> <P> "See" indicates that the cited authority supports, but does not directly state, the proposition given . Used similarly to no signal, to indicate that the proposition follows from the cited authority . It may also be used to refer to a cited authority which supports the proposition . For example, before 1997 the IDEA was silent on the subject of private school reimbursement, but courts had granted such reimbursement as "appropriate" relief under principles of equity pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i) (2) (C). See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, 105 S. Ct. 1996 ("(W) e are confident that by empowering the court to grant' appropriate' relief Congress meant to include retroactive reimbursement to parents as an available remedy in a proper case ."); 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i) (2) (C) ("In any action brought under this paragraph, the court...shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate ."). </P> <P> This indicates that the cited authority constitutes additional material which supports the proposition less directly than that indicated by "see" or "accord". "See also" may be used to introduce a case supporting the stated proposition which is distinguishable from previously - cited cases . It is sometimes used to refer readers to authorities supporting a proposition when other supporting authorities have already been cited or discussed . A parenthetical explanation of the source's relevance, after a citation introduced by "see also", is encouraged . For example, "...Omitting the same mental element in a similar weapons possession statute, such as RCW 9.41. 040, strongly indicates that the omission was purposeful and that strict liability was intended . See generally State v. Alvarez, 74 Wash . App . 250, 260, 872 P. 2d 1123 (1994) (omission of "course of conduct" language in criminal counterpart to civil antiharassment act indicated "Legislature consciously chose to criminalize a single act rather than a course of conduct .") aff'd, 128 Wash. 2d 1, 904 P. 2d 754 (1995); see also State v. Roberts, 117 Wash. 2d 576, 586, 817 P. 2d 855 (1991) (use of certain statutory language in one instance, and different language in another, evinces different legislative intent) (citing cases)." Source: State v. Anderson, 141 Wash. 2d 357, 5 P. 3d 1247, 1253 (2000). </P>

When do you use see in legal citations
find me the text answering this question