2. Agenda 1.Masthead 2.What’s coming up? 3.Plagiarism expectations 4.CS hour system tutorial 5.Feedback Folder tutorial 6.Bluebook, CMOS and AC notes 7.“Super Staffers!” 8.Announcements October Staff Meeting – October 15, 2014 October social event (date TBD)

3. Masthead Sheet is being passed around the room right now Please specify how you would like your name to appear on the masthead

4. What’s coming up? Issue 2 ACs Scheduled to begin within the next two weeks Issue 3 ACs Scheduled to begin end of October Long Paper Deadlines October 1: First draft due to your long paper editor (by email) November 1: Final draft due (submission details TBA)

5. Plagiarism Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited Law Review Consequences Loss of long paper credit Loss of credit Expulsion from law review Referral to the Dean William Mitchell College of Law Consequences

6. What is Plagiarism? Source: http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism

7. Plagiarism Examples By not reaching the issue of educational malpractice, the court missed an opportunity to definitively hold that there is no duty to effectively educate. FROM: Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 251 (2014) By not reaching the issue of educational malpractice, the court missed an opportunity to definitively hold that there is no duty to effectively educate. By not reaching the issue of educational malpractice, the court missed an opportunity to definitively hold that there is no duty to effectively educate. 1 1 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 251 (2014). By not deciding on the issue of the educational malpractice doctrine, the supreme court lost out on an opportunity to hold that there is no obligation to effectively educate. By not deciding on the issue of the educational malpractice doctrine, the supreme court lost out on an opportunity to hold that there is no duty to effectively educate. 1 1 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 251 (2014). The supreme court passed up the chance to clarify the state of the law when it elected not to resolve the educational malpractice question in Glorvigen. The supreme court passed up the chance to clarify the state of the law when it elected not to resolve the educational malpractice question in Glorvigen. 1 1 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 251 (2014). “By not reaching the issue of educational malpractice, the court missed an opportunity to definitively hold that there is no duty to effectively educate.” 1 1 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 251 (2014). Original Plagiarism Not Plagiarism 1 76 5 43 2

8. Plagiarism Examples The doctrine’s tort bar does not, however, cover claims involving personal injury. 75 75 See Ralph A. Anzivino, The False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine, 93 MARQ. L. REV. 1121, 1121 (2010) (commenting that a manufacturer can be sued in tort if its “defective product causes personal injury”) FROM: Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 231 (2014) The doctrine’s tort bar does not, however, cover claims involving personal injury. 20 20 See Ralph A. Anzivino, The False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine, 93 MARQ. L. REV. 1121, 1121 (2010) (commenting that a manufacturer can be sued in tort if its “defective product causes personal injury”). “The doctrine’s tort bar does not, however, cover claims involving personal injury.” 20 20 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 230 (2014); see also Ralph A. Anzivino, The False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine, 93 MARQ. L. REV. 1121, 1121 (2010) (commenting that a manufacturer can be sued in tort if its “defective product causes personal injury”). If the claimant suffers personal injury, he or she will be allowed to sue in tort. 20 20 See Ralph A. Anzivino, The False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine, 93 MARQ. L. REV. 1121, 1121 (2010) (commenting that a manufacturer can be sued in tort if its “defective product causes personal injury”). If the claimant suffers personal injury, he or she will be allowed to sue in tort. 20 20 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 230 (2014). “The doctrine’s tort bar does not, however, cover claims involving personal injury.” 20 20 Joe Johnson, Torts: An Alternative Approach to Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 40 W M. M ITCHELL. L. R EV. 224, 230 (2014) (citing Ralph A. Anzivino, The False Dilemma of the Economic Loss Doctrine, 93 MARQ. L. REV. 1121, 1121 (2010)). Original 12 345 Plagiarism Not Plagiarism

9. Plagiarism Final Thoughts Don’t plagiarize! Review Sections 11 and 12 of the College Handbook When in doubt: Consult a friend, colleague, professor, librarian or board member Err on the side of caution and add a citation/quotation marks/etc.

10. Recording CS Hours Hours must be recorded online through your Student Records page Instructions: Project Name[AuthorLastName]_[ProjectName] Graham_SourcePull Graham_Proof1 Assigned byEditor last name DateDue date HoursTo the nearest tenth of an hour CommentsDescribe what you did

11. Feedback Folder GOAL: Opportunity for you to see if your changes and comments were accepted by the editor Process: Everyone will receive an email invitation to join Dropbox after the staff meeting today. Please sign up and join. Editors will upload post-AC2 and post-Proof versions of each article to the Dropbox “Feedback Folder” You may open and read the articles to check your work (Note: please do not make any changes to the articles).

12. Bluebook, CMOS and AC Notes Points of focus for today: Hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes When to comment vs. when to make the change Order of signals Short cites for cases

13. Hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes Read page 52 of the Staff Manual for a quick refresher Hyphens (CMOS 6.76–6.77): Hyphens are used: in compound words (e.g., twenty-one) to separate numbers that are not inclusive (e.g., 651-555-5555) to separate letters when a word is spelled out (e.g., C-A-T) En-Dashes (CMOS 6.78): The en-dash is used primarily to connect ranges of numbers (e.g, 654–59). Em-Dashes (CMOS 6.82–6.89): The em-dash is the most commonly used dash; it can be used to amplify, explain or set off a phrase in the middle of a sentence. E.g., The evidence was enough—on its own—to convince the judge. -- —— ––

14. Hyphen, en-dash, or em-dash? En-dash: Sicoli v. Rochat, 343 N.W.2d 748, 756–59 (Minn. 1989). Hyphen: Sicoli’s friend was twenty-seven years old. Em-dash: Rochat responded with a harsh gesture—one that Sicoli would not soon forget. Sicoli v. Rochat, 343 N.W.2d 748, 756__59 (Minn. 1989). Sicoli’s friend was twenty__seven years old. Rochat responded with a harsh gesture__one that Sicoli would not soon forget.

15. To comment, or not to comment, that is the question. Chief Justice John Marshall played a pivotal role in the development of Federal Indian Law by deciding to treat an Indian tribe as a “domestic community” instead of a foreign community. 25 25 See Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832). The quoted language and support for the text is on 583, not 584. Should the staffer have left a comment or made the change?

16. Citing a Bluebook Rule 159 See Cronen v. Radaj, 442 N.W.2d 758, 759–62 (Minn. 2011). Pre-AC Post- AC 159 See Cronen v. Radaj, 442 N.W.2d 758, 759–62 (Minn. 2011). Italicized the “See” per BB R. 2.1(d). Was it appropriate to leave a comment citing the applicable Bluebook rule? When is it appropriate to provide a Bluebook cite?

17. Order of Signals 29 See Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832); e.g., Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009); but see Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); U.S. C ONST. art. I, § 9. Pre-AC 1 Post BB R 1.3 Post BB R. 1.4 29 E.g., Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009); see Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832). But see Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997); U.S. C ONST. art. I, § 9. 29 E.g., Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009); see Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 584 (1832). But see U.S. C ONST. art. I, § 9; Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).

18. Special short form for case cites In Peterson v. Kieselbach, the Court decided that Peterson did have an ERISA claim against the defendant. 10 10 100 U.S. 100, 101–09 (2013). Is this correct? Yes. R 10.9(a)(i): “Omit the case name... only if the reader will have no doubt about the case to which the citation refers.” The Court reversed Judge Posner’s decision in Peterson v. Kieselbach, but upheld it in Ervin v. Wheeler. 10 10 100 U.S. 100, 101–09 (2013). Is this correct? No. There is “doubt about the case to which the citation refers.”

19. Super Staffers! Jacob Abdo “Jacob went above & beyond the call of duty in both an AC1 and a Proof1. He went the extra mile to supply some statutory research that the author had left as something to fill in later that likely would have landed on the editor & EE's plates if not added so early during the AC process.” “He identified a bluebook ambiguity that we are including in staff training and may consider adding to our local rules (dropping case name in a short form when the case is cited within the text).” James Schoeberl Received a 5 on an AC

20. Announcements Next Staff Meeting – October 15, 2014 October Social Event (date TBD)