Well, honey, if Miranda is being referenced as a legal case in a transcript, you better believe it should be underlined to make it clear to all those legal eagles reading it. So, yes, underline that bad boy and make sure it stands out like a sore thumb in that sea of legal jargon. Just don't forget the popcorn while you're at it, 'cause legal transcripts can be a real page-turner... not!
"Transcript Judgment Closed" typically refers to the status of a legal case where the judgment has been finalized and recorded, and no further actions or appeals are expected. It indicates that the court's decision has been documented in the case transcript and that the case is considered resolved. This status often means that the parties involved can no longer contest the judgment in that court.
Underline. Unless you're typing, in which case you italicize it.
The transcript for the Blues Clues bug is not publicly available.
The transcript for blue clues idea beds was a Case Study of the Development of "Bugs" .
The U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona is the basis for the procedure of informing suspects of their legal rights during arrest. As a matter of fact, the reading of these rights is commonly called the Miranda Warning.
Miranda v. Arizona is a criminal case. It was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 and addressed the rights of individuals in police custody, specifically the requirement for law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights to silence and legal counsel before interrogation. The ruling established what are now known as "Miranda rights," which are intended to protect individuals against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
Yes, unless you are writing by hand in which case you can underline it.
The Miranda rights themselves are a part of the amendments to the Constitution. They became "the Miranda rights" and it was required that they be read to suspects in 1966. This was decided in the supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona.
miranda
Miranda v. Arizona
The plaintiff in Miranda v. Arizona was Ernesto Miranda. He was arrested in 1963 and subsequently confessed to crimes without being informed of his rights, leading to the landmark Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform suspects of their rights to silence and legal counsel during interrogations.
It affirmed the right to an attorney and was a case that led to the Miranda Rights that came about in Miranda vs Arizona.