Legal Definitions - See

In legal writing, the signal See is used before a citation to indicate that the referenced source provides clear support for the statement that precedes it, but that some logical inference or connection must be made by the reader to fully understand that support. It is distinct from situations where a statement directly quotes or paraphrases a source, in which case no signal is typically used.

Essentially, when a legal writer uses See, they are guiding the reader to a source that, while not explicitly stating the exact point, contains the necessary information, reasoning, or precedent from which the writer's statement can be logically derived.

• Example 1: Applying a broad legal principle to a new scenario

  A legal brief argues, "The property owner had a duty to maintain safe conditions for all visitors, including those who entered without explicit invitation. See [Citation to a court case]."

  Explanation: The cited court case likely did not involve the exact same property or visitor circumstances as the current situation. However, it established a foundational legal principle regarding a property owner's duty of care that, when applied through logical inference, clearly supports the argument being made about the current property owner's responsibilities.

• Example 2: Inferring legislative intent from related provisions

  A lawyer asserts, "The statute's broad language regarding 'unfair business practices' is intended to cover novel forms of consumer deception not explicitly listed. See [Citation to a different section of the same statute or legislative history]."

  Explanation: The cited source (perhaps another section of the statute or legislative committee reports) might not directly define "unfair business practices" to include the specific novel deception at issue. However, by examining the broader context or stated goals in the cited material, the reader can infer that the legislature intended the statute to be flexible enough to address new forms of deception, thereby supporting the lawyer's interpretation.

• Example 3: Drawing a general conclusion from a series of related judicial decisions

  A legal scholar writes, "Modern courts are increasingly willing to consider digital communications as binding contractual offers, even without traditional signatures. See [Citation to a series of recent appellate court decisions]."

  Explanation: No single cited case might explicitly declare a universal rule that "all digital communications are binding offers." Instead, the collection of cited cases, when read together, demonstrates a pattern or trend in judicial reasoning where courts have, in various contexts, treated digital communications as valid offers. The reader must infer this overarching trend from the individual rulings to support the scholar's general statement.