美国法律英文备忘录
legal memo范例
Legal Memo范例介绍本文旨在提供一份Legal Memo范例，以帮助读者更好地理解和编写法律备忘录。
法律备忘录是律师在为客户提供法律建议时使用的一种常见文书。
它通常包括对法律问题的分析、相关法律规定的引用以及对可能的解决方案的建议。
背景在本节中，我们将讨论法律备忘录的背景信息。
这包括与该案件相关的法律和事实。
法律背景在这一部分，我们将提供与案件有关的法律背景信息。
这可能包括相关法律条款、法律判例以及其他法律文件。
事实背景在这一部分，我们将提供与案件有关的事实背景信息。
这可能包括案件的起因、涉及的各方以及其他相关的事实。
问题陈述在本节中，我们将明确要解决的法律问题。
这一部分应该非常清晰和具体。
分析在这一部分，我们将对问题进行分析。
这包括对相关法律条款和判例的解释和应用。
第一点在这一部分，我们将讨论第一个关键点。
这可能是一个相关法律条款或一个相关的法律案例。
第二点在这一部分，我们将讨论第二个关键点。
这可能是另一个相关法律条款或另一个相关的法律案例。
第三点在这一部分，我们将讨论第三个关键点。
这可能是另一个相关法律条款或另一个相关的法律案例。
第四点在这一部分，我们将讨论第四个关键点。
这可能是另一个相关法律条款或另一个相关的法律案例。
结论在本节中，我们将总结我们的分析并提出解决问题的建议。
参考文献在这一部分，我们将列出我们在分析过程中引用的所有法律文件和其他参考资料。
1.引用文献12.引用文献23.引用文献3附录在本节中，我们将提供与法律备忘录相关的任何其他信息，例如附加的图表、图像或其他文件。
免责声明在本节中，我们将提供适用的免责声明。
这将确保读者了解到法律备忘录的限制和使用范围。
以上是一份Legal Memo范例。
请根据您自己的需求和具体情况进行修改和调整。
《美国法典》(US Code)篇目
Title 44 Public Printing and Documents
Title 45 Railroads
Title 46 Shipping
Title 47 Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs
Title 48 Territories and Insular Possessions
Title 49 Transportation
Title 50 War and National Defense
第35篇专利
第36篇爱国团体与章程
第37篇军职部门的薪金与津贴
第38篇退伍军人的福利
第39篇邮政
第40篇公共建筑、财产和工程
第41篇公共合同
第42篇公众健康与福利
第43篇公共土地
第44篇公共印刷业与文件
第45篇铁路
第46篇航运
第47篇电报、电话和无线电讯
第48篇领地和岛屿属地
第49篇运输
第50篇战争和国防
《美国法典》（US Code）篇目
中译文
原英文
第1篇总则
第2篇国会
第3篇总统
第4篇国旗和国玺，政府所在地，以及各州
第5篇政府组织与雇员
第6篇国内安全
第7篇农业
第8篇外籍人和国籍
第9篇仲裁
第10篇武装力量
第11篇破产
第12篇银行和银行业
第13篇人口普查
第14篇海岸警卫队
第15篇商业和贸易
第16篇资源保护
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters
Title 34 Navy (repealed)
美国法案成为法律的流程图简单英文版
美国法案成为法律的流程图简单英文版全文共10篇示例，供读者参考篇1Once upon a time in America, there was a special process that turned bills into laws. Let's follow the journey of a bill as it becomes a law in the United States.Step 1: IntroductionIt all starts with an idea for a new law. This idea can come from anyone - a citizen, a group of people, or even a member of Congress. The idea is written down as a bill.Step 2: Committee ReviewThe bill is then sent to a committee in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The committee carefully reviews the bill, discusses its merits, and may make changes to improve it.Step 3: Floor ActionOnce the committee gives the bill its approval, it goes to the full chamber (either the House or the Senate) for debate and avote. Lawmakers discuss the bill, propose amendments, and ultimately vote on whether to pass it.Step 4: Conference CommitteeIf the bill passes one chamber but not the other, a conference committee made up of members from both chambers is formed to reconcile the differences. They work together to create a final version of the bill that both chambers can agree on.Step 5: Presidential ApprovalOnce the bill has passed both the House and the Senate, it is sent to the President for approval. The President can either sign the bill into law or veto it. If the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote.Step 6: LawIf the President signs the bill, it becomes a law. It is then published and added to the United States Code, which is a collection of all the laws of the country.And there you have it - the journey of a bill as it becomes a law in the United States! From an idea to presidential approval, the process is thorough and democratic. It's how laws are made to ensure the well-being and prosperity of all Americans.篇2Title: The Process of a Bill Becoming a Law in the United StatesHey guys! Today I'm going to talk about how a bill becomes a law in the United States. It's a pretty cool process, so let's check it out!Step 1: Introduction of a BillSo, the first step is when a member of Congress has an idea for a new law. They write up the idea and present it to either the House of Representatives or the Senate. This written idea is called a bill.Step 2: Committee ReviewAfter the bill is introduced, it goes to a committee for review. The committee looks closely at the bill, discusses it, and may even make changes to it. If the committee likes the bill, they will send it to the full House or Senate for a vote.Step 3: House and Senate VoteOnce the bill reaches the full House or Senate, the members will debate it and then vote on whether or not they want to passit. If a majority of the members vote in favor of the bill, it moves on to the other chamber for a vote.Step 4: Conference CommitteeSometimes, the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill. When this happens, a conference committee made up of members from both chambers meets to iron out the differences and come up with a final version of the bill.Step 5: Presidential ApprovalOnce both the House and Senate have passed the final version of the bill, it is sent to the President. The President can either sign the bill into law, veto it (reject it), or do nothing and the bill becomes law after 10 days.And there you have it! That's how a bill becomes a law in the United States. It's a pretty long and complicated process, but it's super important for making and changing our laws. Cool, right?篇3Once upon a time, in the land of the United States, there were some really important rules called laws. Laws are like the rules that we have at school or at home, but they are decided onby grown-ups called lawmakers. These lawmakers work in a special place called the Capitol building in Washington D.C.When the lawmakers come up with a new law, they have to follow a special process to make sure it becomes official. This process is called the legislative process. Let me tell you all about it!First, a lawmaker comes up with an idea for a new law. This idea is called a bill. The lawmaker writes down the details of the bill and shares it with other lawmakers. Then, the bill is introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, which are two groups in Congress.Once the bill is introduced, it goes through a series of steps in both the House and the Senate. The bill is debated, or talked about, by lawmakers who share their opinions and ideas. They may make changes to the bill during this time.After the debates and discussions, the bill goes to a vote. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate vote on whether they agree with the bill or not. If the majority of lawmakers vote yes, then the bill moves on to the next step.The next step is for the bill to go to the President of the United States. The President can either sign the bill, which makesit a law, or veto the bill, which means it does not become a law. If the President signs the bill, it becomes official and everyone has to follow it.And that, my friends, is how a bill becomes a law in the United States! It's a long process, but it's important to make sure that all laws are fair and just for everyone. So, the next time you see a new law in the news, you'll know how it came to be!篇4Once upon a time, in the land of the United States, there was a special way that laws were made. This way was called the process of turning a bill into a law. Let me tell you all about it in a fun and easy-to-understand way!Step 1: The IdeaIt all starts with an idea for a new law. This idea can come from anyone – a citizen, a group, or even a member of Congress. They write down their idea and turn it into a bill, which is like a proposal for a new law.Step 2: IntroductionThe bill is then introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. The bill is read aloud and thensent to a committee for review. The committee members discuss the bill, make changes, and may even hold hearings to get input from experts and the public.Step 3: Debate and VoteAfter the committee has finished reviewing the bill, it is sent to the full House or Senate for debate. Members discuss the bill, argue for or against it, and eventually vote on whether to pass it. If a majority of the members vote in favor, the bill moves on to the other chamber for consideration.Step 4: Conference CommitteeSometimes, the House and Senate versions of the bill are different. In that case, a conference committee made up of members from both chambers works together to create a compromise version of the bill that everyone can agree on.Step 5: ApprovalOnce the conference committee has resolved any differences, the final version of the bill is sent back to the House and Senate for approval. If both chambers pass the bill, it is sent to the President for approval.Step 6: Presidential SignatureThe President has the power to either sign the bill into law or veto it. If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law. But if the President vetoes the bill, it is sent back to Congress, where they can try to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote.And there you have it – the process of how a bill becomes a law in the United States! It may seem like a long and complicated process, but it is a crucial part of how our government works to create and uphold the laws that govern our country. Remember, anyone can be a part of this process by sharing their ideas and working together to make a difference!篇5First, a bill is introduced by a member of Congress either in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The bill is then assigned to a committee for review.Next, the committee holds hearings to gather information and opinions from experts, stakeholders, and the public. The committee may also make changes to the bill before voting on whether to send it to the full chamber for debate.Once the bill is debated on the floor of the House or Senate, lawmakers have the opportunity to discuss its merits, proposeamendments, and vote on its passage. If the bill passes one chamber, it then moves to the other chamber for consideration.If both chambers pass the bill, it is sent to the President for approval. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law. However, if the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.After a bill becomes law, it is implemented by relevant government agencies and departments. These agencies are responsible for enforcing the law and ensuring that it is carried out effectively.Throughout the process, the public can participate by contacting their representatives, attending hearings, and voicing their opinions on the bill. This ensures that the voices of the people are heard and considered in the lawmaking process.In this way, the United States has a system of checks and balances that helps to ensure that only well-thought-out and necessary laws are passed. The process may be complex, but it is designed to uphold democracy and protect the rights of all Americans.篇6Once upon a time, in the land of the United States of America, there were many laws that were created to help keep everyone safe and happy. But do you ever wonder how those laws actually become official? Well, let me tell you the process of how a bill becomes a law in America!It all starts with an idea. Someone, like a member of Congress or even the President, can come up with an idea for a new law. They write it down in a document called a bill. The bill is then introduced to Congress, which is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill goes through a series of steps in each house, where it is debated, discussed, and voted on.If the bill passes both the House and the Senate, it goes to the President. The President can either sign the bill into law or veto it, which means saying no. If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law and is added to the official laws of the United States.But the process doesn't stop there! Once a law is passed, it is up to the government agencies to make sure it is enforced. They create rules and regulations to help everyone understand how the law should be followed. And if someone doesn't follow thelaw, they may face consequences like fines or even going to court.So there you have it, the journey of how a bill becomes a law in America. It's a long process with many steps, but it's all worth it to help keep our country running smoothly and safely. Who knows, maybe one day you'll have an idea for a new law and will be able to see it through the process yourself!篇7The process of a bill becoming a law in the United States is like a fun and exciting adventure! Let's explore how a bill turns into a law step by step:Step 1: Introduction of a BillIt all starts with an idea for a new law. A member of Congress, either a Senator or a Representative, writes the bill and introduces it in their respective chamber. The bill is then given a number and a title.Step 2: Committee ReviewThe bill is sent to a committee based on its subject matter. The committee holds hearings, debates, and may make changesto the bill. If the committee approves the bill, it is sent to the full chamber for consideration.Step 3: Floor Debate and VoteOnce the bill reaches the full chamber (House of Representatives or Senate), there is a debate on the bill. Members discuss the pros and cons of the bill before voting on it. If the majority of the members vote in favor of the bill, it moves on to the other chamber.Step 4: Conference CommitteeIf the other chamber makes changes to the bill, a conference committee is formed to work out the differences between the two versions of the bill. Once both chambers agree on the final version of the bill, it is sent to the President.Step 5: Presidential ApprovalThe President can either sign the bill into law or veto it. If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law. If the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.Step 6: Law EnforcementOnce the bill is signed into law, it is enforced by the appropriate government agencies. The new law is now in effect and must be followed by everyone.And there you have it, the journey of a bill becoming a law in the United States! It's a long process, but it's crucial for making sure that our laws are fair and just. So next time you hear about a new law, remember all the steps it took to become a reality!篇8Hey guys! Do you know how a bill becomes a law in the United States? Let me tell you all about it in a super simple way!First, a congressman or senator comes up with an idea for a new law. This idea is called a bill. They write up the bill and introduce it in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.Next, the bill goes to a committee where it is reviewed and discussed. The committee may make changes to the bill before sending it to the full chamber for a vote.If the bill is approved by the full chamber, it then goes to the other chamber (either the House or the Senate) where the process is repeated. If both chambers approve the bill, it goes to the President.The President can either sign the bill into law or veto it. If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law. If the President vetoes the bill, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.And that's it! That's how a bill becomes a law in the United States. It's a pretty long process, but that's how our government makes sure that all laws are carefully considered and debated before they are put into action. Cool, right?篇9Hello everyone! Today I'm going to talk about how a bill becomes a law in the United States. It's like a journey that a bill has to go through to become a law!First, an idea for a new law is called a bill. And guess what? Anyone can come up with a bill! It could be a regular person like you or me, or someone who works in the government. Pretty cool, right?So, once someone comes up with a bill, they have to convince a member of Congress to sponsor it. That means the member of Congress will introduce the bill to the House of Representatives or the Senate. The bill gets a number and a fancy title, just like a superhero!Next, the bill goes to a committee. This is like a group of people who are experts in certain areas. They take a closer look at the bill, make changes, and even vote on whether they think it's a good idea. If the bill makes it through the committee, it goes to the whole House of Representatives or Senate for a vote.If the majority of the members in the House or Senate vote "yes" on the bill, it moves on to the other side (either the House or Senate) for more debating and voting. If both sides agree on the bill, it goes to the President.Finally, if the President signs the bill, it becomes a law! Hooray! The law is now official and everyone has to follow it.And that, my friends, is how a bill becomes a law in the United States. It's a pretty long process, but it's important to make sure the laws are fair and good for everyone. Thanks for listening!篇10Title: The Process of How a Bill Becomes a Law in the United StatesHey guys! Have you ever wondered how a bill becomes a law in the United States? It's super cool and important to knowbecause it affects all of us. Let me break it down for you in a simple and easy way.Step 1: Introduction of a BillSo, it all starts with an idea for a new law. This idea is called a bill. The bill is introduced by a member of Congress, either in the House of Representatives or the Senate. They write up the bill and present it to their colleagues.Step 2: Committee ActionOnce the bill is introduced, it goes to a committee for review. The committee can make changes to the bill, hold hearings to gather more information, and vote on whether or not to send the bill to the full chamber for debate.Step 3: Floor ActionIf the committee sends the bill to the full chamber, it goes to the floor for debate. Members of Congress discuss the bill, propose amendments, and vote on whether or not to pass it. If a majority of the members vote in favor of the bill, it moves on to the other chamber.Step 4: Conference CommitteeSometimes, the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill. In that case, a conference committee is formed to work out the differences and come up with a compromise version of the bill.Step 5: Presidential ActionOnce both chambers of Congress pass the same version of the bill, it goes to the President. The President can either sign the bill into law or veto it. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law. If the President vetoes the bill, Congress can try to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.And there you have it, guys! That's the process of how a bill becomes a law in the United States. It's a pretty long and complicated process, but it's super important for making sure our country runs smoothly and fairly. Cool, right? Let me know if you have any questions!。
律所 英文备忘里
律所英文备忘里律所的英文备忘录格式可以参考以下内容：1. 标题：Memorandum2. 收件人：相关人员或客户3. 日期：撰写备忘录的日期4. 主题：关于XXXX（具体事项）的备忘录5. 正文：备忘录的主要内容，包括事件背景、相关事项、重要信息等6. 结尾：感谢收件人的关注，如有疑问请及时联系等以下是一个示例：MemorandumTo: Client AFrom: Law Firm BDate: XXXX-XX-XXSubject: Memorandum on Contract Negotiation ProgressDear Client A,This memorandum is to inform you of the progress made in our contract negotiation with Party C. As of today, we have successfully reached an agreement on the main terms and conditions of the contract. However, there are a few minor points that still need to be finalized. We expect to complete the finalization of these points within the next week. We will keep you informed of any developments in this matter. Thank you for your attention and support. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.Best regards,Law Firm B。
法律备忘录写作-Legal-Memo-Writing-20130829【范本模板】
法律备忘录写作大纲1.什么是“IRAC”方法？2.备忘录的目的/功能3.备忘录的结构4.备忘录的写作技巧1. 什么是“IRAC”方法？“IRAC”是一种分析法律问题并组织语言回答法律问题的方法•问题(Issue）—-亟待解决的问题•规则（Rule)--法规或判例法中的法律规则•运用(Application）--将上述法律规则运用到事实中•结论（Conclusion）——得出结论3●“IRAC”方法用于备忘录“法律问题的简要回答"和“法律分析"部分的书写●“IRAC"也常用于书写备忘录其他部分2。
备忘录的目的/功能●备忘录用于：•解答法律问题•解决法律纠纷•预测事件的结果●备忘录一般写给律师或者客户●备忘录•具有预测性（能够预测事件的结果）•具有说服力（能够对他人产生影响或提供建议）3。
备忘录的结构●标题（包括金杜律师事务所的logo）●提出问题●简要回答●事实陈述●法律分析●结论（可包含法律建议）(1）标题•日期Date:[日期]•发送至To：［需要备忘录的律师或客户的名字］•来自From：［你自己的名字］•抄送CC：［上级合伙人或资深律师]•编号Matter number:[如有涉及]•主题Subject:[必须简短得概括备忘录的主要内容］•如有必要，须在备忘录上标注“律师—客户保密文件（Attorney-Client Privileged)"、“律师工作成果（Attorney Work Product）”或者“机密的(Confidential）”•标题（范本)备忘录(Memorandum) 金杜律师事务所日期Date： 2013年8月6日发送至To：乔治布什来自From：奥巴马抄送CC: 希拉里克林顿主题Subject：依据中国法律约翰史密斯所应承担的忠实勤勉义务（编号：8800568)（2)提出问题•说明需要分析的问题•对于每个单独的问题，需要用单独句子说明•编号列表/项目符号/短句•起始句一般有以下几种:“就你方委托我们分析…法律问题的事宜”“就你方委托我方关于…问题提供法律意见的事宜"“就你方委托我们回答下列问题的事宜…”“根据你方的要求/在年月日的邮件内容…”•选择列出法律问题的合适顺序•“提出法律问题"部分应包含法律和事实的内容•提出问题（范本）提出问题贵司要求我们分析，作为通用汽车有限公司(以下称“通用汽车公司“）的高级行政管理人员，约翰史密斯是否需要对公司承担忠实勤勉的义务?如果史密斯先生需要承担该义务，贵司需要我们进一步分析，史密斯先生利用公司商业机会成立私人公司的行为是否违反忠实勤勉的义务?列出问题a.约翰史密斯作为通用汽车公司的高级行政管理人员，是否需要对通用汽车公司承担忠实勤勉的义务？b.史密斯先生利用通用汽车公司的商业机会成立私人公司的行为是否违反其对通用汽车公司的忠实勤勉义务？(3)简要回答（在备忘录中第一次使用“IRAC”方法）•第一步：陈述结论•第二步：说明相关的法律规则（法律或判例法）•第三步：概括得出该结论的理由•第四步：再次陈述结论•相关技巧：a。
中美反托拉斯和反垄断合作谅解备忘录签署中英文
中美反托拉斯和反垄断合作谅解备忘录Memorandum of Understanding on Antitrust and Antimonopoly Cooperation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China为加强中美反垄断领域合作，2011年7月27日，中国三家反垄断执法机构国家发展改革委、商务部和国家工商总局与美国反托拉斯执法机构司法部、联邦贸易委员会在京共同签署了《中美反托拉斯和反垄断合作谅解备忘录》。
备忘录在中国反垄断执法机构和美国反托拉斯机构之间建立了长期合作框架，以促进双方更有效地执行竞争法律和政策。
根据备忘录，中美反垄断和反托拉斯执法机构将在各方面加强合作。
附件为该谅解备忘录英文文本。
The United States Federal Trade Commission, the United States Department of Justice; and the People’s Republic of China National Development and Reform Commission,Ministry of Commerce, and State Administration for Industry and Commerce , Desiring to enhance the effective enforcement of their competition laws and policies by creating a framework for long-term cooperation between the U.S. antitrust agencies and the PRC antimonopoly agencies, in order to enhance an environment in which the sound and effective enforcement of competition law and policy supports the efficient operation of markets and economic welfare of the citizens of their respective nations, will contribute to improving and strengthening the relationship between the United States and China.为加强中美反垄断领域合作，7月27日，中国三家反垄断执法机构国家发展改革委、商务部和国家工商总局与美国反托拉斯执法机构司法部、联邦贸易委员会在京共同签署了《中美反托拉斯和反垄断合作谅解备忘录》。
英文法律备忘录范文
英文法律备忘录范文Here's a sample of a legal memorandum in English,written in an informal and conversational tone while maintaining the diversity of expression in each paragraph:Alright, let's dive into the legal nuances of this case. Firstly, the contract is pretty clear about the payment terms. It states that the buyer has to make the full payment within 30 days of signing. No exceptions.Now, on the other hand, the seller has a valid argument about the force majeure clause. They're claiming that the delay in delivery was due to an unforeseen event beyondtheir control. We need to look into that closely.As for the breach of contract allegations, well, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. The buyer's argument that the seller failed to meet the quality standards is a serious one. We'll need to examine the quality assurance documents and compare them with the actual product.On the legal precedent side, there's a recent casethat's pretty similar to ours. The court ruled in favor of the seller in that case, citing the force majeure clause. But, of course, every case is unique, so we can't relysolely on that.Lastly, let's not forget about the mediation option. Sometimes, a simple discussion between the parties can resolve these issues amicably. We should explore that route before heading to court.So, in summary, we've got a few things to consider here. The contract terms, the force majeure clause, the breach of contract allegations, the legal precedents, and the mediation option. Let's gather all the necessary documents and have a team discussion to figure out the best course of action.。
法律英语单词表
11th Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida佛罗里达州迈阿密-戴德县的第十一巡回法院Acceptance 承诺Accord and Satisfaction 一致和满意规则（一般在修改合同中使用）Action in equity衡平法诉讼Action in LawAdequate足够的Admiralty 英国海军部队Adopt 采纳Advisory 顾问的Advisory Opinion 咨询意见Affirm支持Agreement协议Agreement to agree一致同意Agreement to negotiate 协议谈判Allege 声称，断言Amendment 修正案American Jurisprudence (AmJur) 美国法学（数据库）American Law Report 美国法律报告Annotation 评注Anticipate预期，预料Appeal上诉，申诉Appeal上诉，申诉Appellate上诉的Appellate上诉的Article文章，篇章，条款Assault施暴Assault and Battery 暴力殴打Associate 同事Bargain议价Bargain议价，买卖Bargain for 要价Battery殴打Bench Trial法官审案，上诉审Bilateral双边的Binding约束力Breach违约Breach违约Circuit巡回Circuit巡回，环行Citation 引证Citation引用，引证Civil Rights Act of 1964（1964民权法案）Claim preclusion 请求排除Claimant原告，主张者Clause条款Code法典Code法典Collateral estoppel禁止间接反言/翻供原则Commander指挥官Commerce商业Commerce Clause商业条款Common Law 普通法Concurrent 同时发生的Congress 国会Consideration对价Constitute组成，构成，设立Contend主张Contract合同Contract price合同价格Contractual priceCounsel建议，忠告Counselor顾问Creditor债权人Damage损害Damages损害赔偿金Debt债务Debtor债务人Decedent死者Decision决定，判决Defendant被告Deliver v.投递，交付Delivery n.投递，交付Department of Labor 劳工部Dispute 争议District地区，县Diversity 多样性Diversity Jurisdiction（基于多样性的管辖权）Dormant睡眠的Dormant Commerce Clause 休眠商务条款Duty义务，责任Enforceable有效的Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC)平等就业机会委员会Estate不动产Estoppel 禁止翻供Executive行政权；执行的，管理的Exemption 豁免Expectation 期望值，期待值Expression 表达Fair Labor Standard Act(FLSA)公平劳动标准法Federal 联邦的Federal Court 联邦法院Federal government 联邦政府Fiduciary 信托的，受托人Fiduciary duty 诚信责任，受信责任Final and Complete contract 最终且完整的合同Florida佛罗里达Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal 佛罗里达第三地区上诉法院Florida Supreme Court 佛罗里达最高法院Foreclosure 丧失抵押品赎回权Foresee 预见Foreseen 预见的Fraud欺诈Fraudulent欺诈的General partner 普通合伙人Good faith 善意Goods 货物Government 政府Governor 管理者，统治者Highest Court of Appeal 最高上诉法院House of Representatives 众议院Impeach v.控告（叛国）Impeachment n.控告，弹劾Inferior 低等的，次要的Injunction 禁令Intelligent 聪明的Intent 意图，目的Intermediate Court of Appeal 中级上诉法院Interpretation 解释Inventory 存货，清单Issue Preclusion争点排除Judge Posner 波斯纳法官Judiciary 法官；法官的，法院的Jurisdiction 司法权，管辖权Jurisdiction 司法权，管辖权Jurisprudence 法学Jury 陪审团Jury trial陪审团审案，初审Justice Ginsburg 金斯伯格大法官Justice O’Connor 奥康纳大法官Justice Scalia （斯卡利亚大法官）Lease 租约Leasee 承租人Leasor 出租人Legal value 法律价值Legal Value （Consideration意义上的法律价值）法律价值Legitimate 合法的LexisNexis 律商联讯（外文资源网）Liability 责任，义务Limited partner 有限合伙人Limited partnership 有限合伙Mandatory 强制性Market 市场Material 物质的Merger 合并Merger clause 合并条款Miami-Dade County Court, Florida 佛罗里达州迈阿密-戴德县Militia 民兵Minimum Wage （最低工资）Modification修改Moral 道德的Moral Duty(Consideration 的特殊问题)道德义务Mortgage 抵押Mutual相互的Necessary and Proper Clause必要且适当条款Negotiation 谈判New York 纽约New York Appellate Divisions ofSupreme Court （这个是NY州的上诉法院）New York Court of Appeals (这个是NY州的最高法院)New York Jurisprudence (NYJur) 纽约法学（数据库）New York Supreme Court （这个是NY州的初审法院）Notice 通知，公告Objective 客观的，外在的Obligation’义务Offer要约Operate 操作，运营Option 选择Overtime payment （加班工资）PACER （Pacer系统，美国联邦法院文书传递和检索系统）Parol Evidence Rule 口头证据排除规则Partnership 合伙Pension抚恤金，养老金Performance 履行Permanent 永久的Persuade 说服Persuasive 雄辩的Persuasive 雄辩的Pin CitePlaintiff 原告Precedent 先例Pre-Existing Duty先在义务，既存义务Present 赠与President 总统President of Senate (US) 参议院主席Presidential line of succession 总统继承顺序Promise 承诺Promissory estoppel 禁止反言规则Promissory Estoppel 禁止反言规则Proposal 议案，方案Propose 提议，建议Proscribe 禁止，放逐Prospective 预期的Provision 规定，条款Punitive 惩罚性的Punitive Damages 惩罚性损害赔偿Purchase 购买Purpose目的，意图Real Property 不动产Reasonable 合理的Reference 参考Relevant 有关的Remanded 押，发回重审Removal移除Render呈送Render 给予，呈送Renewal 更新，修改Rent出租，租金Reporter 报告人，记者Representative 代表，众议员Reprieve 缓刑Res Judicata 既判力原则（既决事项不再受理）Resolve 解决Restatement重述，重申Restatement 重述，重申Reversed （判决等）撤销的Review 评论Sale 销售Sales 销售Schedule 计划，时间表Secondary 次要的，中学Secretary of State (国务卿)Senate 参议院Separation of Powers 分权Service 服务Speaker of House 白宫发言人Specific performance实际履行Stare Decisis 先例State Court 州法院Statute 法规，法律Statute of Limitation限制条例Subjective 主观的，个人的Substantive 独立的，是在的Sufficient 充分的Summon 传唤Superior 高级的，上级的Supreme 最高的Supreme Court 最高法院Supreme Court Justice 最高法院审理Tender 投标，提出Tender 议案，投标Tie vote 票数相等Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641964民权法案第七标题Trail Court （初审法院）Trial 审判UCC (Uniform Commercial Code)统一商法典UCC（Uniform Commercial Code）统一商法典Unilateral单边的United State District Court for Southern District of New York纽约南区的美国地区法院United States Circuit Court of Appeal 美国巡回上诉法院United States Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit美国第七巡回上诉法院United States District Court 美国地区法院United States Supreme Court 美国最高法院USCA (United States Code Annotation)美国法律评注Value价值Vest 授权，归属Vice president 副总统V oluntary 自愿的Westlaw 西方法律（外文资源网）Windfall 意外的收获Writing demand 书面请求。
备忘录
法律备忘录格式规范MEMORANDUM OF LAW FORMAT关于格式规范的说明：在涉外法律文书写作时，Memorandum of Law （以下简称“memo”）是经常遇到的一个概念。
比如，我们在涉外律师事务所工作时，当我们的主任律师接到一项法律业务后，其中的一项工作就是要求事务所内的助理律师(associates) 草拟一个法律备忘录（memo）；当我们向法院提交起诉书（complaint）或答辩状（answer）时，通常需要就法律和事实递交一份陈述状（memo）；在庭审（court proceeding）中，向法院提交一项动议(motion) 时，也需要我们递交一份支持该动议的法律陈述状（memo of points and authorities）；当我们代理客户在参加一起国际商事仲裁（arbitration）时，仲裁机构也往往会要求当事方提交memo，以阐明自己的观点；甚至当我们代表国家在国际法院（International Court of Justice，简称“ICJ”）参加诉讼时，国际法院也会要求当事国提交一份“memorial”，这实际一种memo。
在我们国家的司法实践中律师的代理词与法律备忘录最为接近。
目前没有标准的或者唯一正确的法律备忘录格式规范。
许多大型的律师事务所和法学院都制定自己的法律备忘录格式规范。
这些格式规范可能有所差别。
英美国家法学院一般在一年级新生开设的Legal Research and Writing（法律研究与写作）课程中规范和训练法律备忘录的写作，部分教授根据自己课程的特点也会制定自己课程内的法律备忘录格式。
某些国际性模拟法庭辩论赛例如有50年历史的Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition杰赛普国际法模拟法庭辩论赛和16年历史的Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot（国际商事仲裁模拟法庭）也制定了自己的法律备忘录格式作为参赛队提交的书面材料。
纽约必备法律文书-LawHelpNY
中/英文本您準備好了嗎？因爲什麽事都可能發生！您是否知道根據紐約州法律，哪些重要的法律文件是你必須擁有的？您是否已經準備好所有的重要法律文件？如果發生緊急情況，您的親人是否知道該如何處理？ 您的親人是否有法定權力照顧您，並為您作出決定？ 您的親人中的哪一位擁有為您做決定的最高權力？如果沒有人可以幫助您，您該做什麽？這份文件的作者是鄺艷蓮律師，波爾夏德老年法律基金會2009-2010研究員, 其研究項目與紐約州律師協會合作完成。
鄺律師的研究項目由緬街法律服務公司—紐約市大學立法學院的實習機構—資助，並在指導律師Joseph Rosenberg教授的指導下完成。
本文由皇后大學學生張萌義務翻譯成繁體中文。
作爲紐約州律師協會Decision Making Day Program的一部分，這是特別散發給華裔耆老的信息資料。
簡介我們都知道，為一些人生中的重大事件早作打算是減少壓力和優化結果的最好方式。
我們熱衷於計劃開心的事情，把殘酷的留到最後一刻或者乾脆去冒險。
但是，對於一些人生的重要事件，提前作計劃也是避免法律問題的必要方式。
我們中的許多人都以爲我們的親人會“處理好”或者“知道做什麽”。
但是，法律是如何規定的呢？法律會給您的親人帶來麻煩嗎？還有，如果沒有人可以幫助您，您該怎麽辦呢？這份資料包含有關準備法律文件的信息，希望可以幫助您和你的親人將來準備您自己的法律文件。
這也是開始討論一些難以開口卻很重要的事情的有效方式。
把這些分享給您的親人，或者聯係社工或者律師。
這份資料包含以下法律文件的基本信息，這些信息可以幫助您避免法律問題：醫療護理委托書– Health Care Proxy生前意願書– Living Will授權書– Power of Attorney此外，很多人都想知道人去世后，財產如何分配，遺囑是否有必要。
在這份資料的最後有一小節提供了以下基本信息：1.當一個人去世后，他的財產將如何分配？2.我需要遺囑嗎？醫療護理委托書– HEALTH CARE PROXY目的：如果一個人因爲身體或者精神原因不能表達自己的意願，一個被指定的醫療護理代理人擁有法定權力代表這個人做出醫療護理決定.爲什麽這很重要？確保您的親人不需要去法庭得到法定權限，也不需要每年去法庭報到。
美国法学院MEMO 教学范本
MEMORANDUMTO: Professor GreenhawFROM: Yiheng LouRE: Possession of a pair of barber scissor in jacket pocketIssueWhether defendant will be convicted in violation of California Penal Code Section 12020 for the possession of a pair of barber scissor in her right jacket pocket?ConclusionThe defendant will probably be acquitted of crime under California Penal Code. The Code forbid any person to carry concealed "dirk or dagger". As a matter of law, "dirk" and "dagger" are used synonymously and mean weapons designed primarily for stabbing. People v. Ruiz, 88 Cal.App. 502, 504 (Dist. Ct. App. 1928). Conceded the scissor of the defendant is concealed, as long as it doesn't satisfy the definition of "dirk or dagger" , defendant will get a judgment for her.FactsMs. Hastings (Client) is a 28-year-old female resident in San Bernardino, CA. On one evening, she had some wine with her friends in a restaurant and drove back to home after the dinner. Then she was stopped by police cruiser and asked for drivers license and registration. On the requirement of police, sheperformed several tasks to demonstrate whether she was intoxicated.When she finished walking a straight lien and turned to walk back, the police officer observed there was a shiny object sticking out in her right jacket pocket. The officer drew his gun and demanded Client put her hands in the air and lay down on the road.Upon search, an 8 inch long pair of barber scissors were found in Client's pocket. Then she was read Miranda rights and taken into custody. The Client is finally charged with violation of Cal. Pen. Code Section 12020, possession of a concealed dirk or dagger.DiscussionMs. Hastings would probably be able to get a guiltless judgment for the possession of a pair of barber scissors in her right jacket pocket under California Penal Code Section 12020. See Cal. Penal Code §12020 (West 1872). That statute provides that "Any person . . . who carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger, is guilty of a felony . . . ." Id. To be acquitted, Client must prove at least one of the following two requirements is satisfied: (1) the scissors were not "concealed"; (2) the scissors were not included in the definition of "dirk or dagger". See id. Despite the fact that the scissors were partly visible, they were still considered as "concealed" under the law. But the scissors probably didn't satisfy the definition of "dirk or dagger". Id.A.The scissors were concealed.Under the statute, the defendant need not be totally successful in concealinga dirk to be guilty of violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a). People v. Fuentes, 64 Cal. App. 3d 953, 955 (Ct. App. 1976). In Fuentes, the defendant struck the victim and rummaged the victim's wallet and watch with his accomplice. When the police officer pursued them and finally arrested the defendant, there were duct-taped dirk and another cylindrical-shaped pointed object in defendant's waistband. Id. The defendant was convicted of possession of a dirk or dagger. The court reasoned that the mere fact that some portion of the handle may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon. Id.Here, it appears that the scissors protruded from the Client's right jacket pocket would still be regarded as "concealed" by court. The scissors were about 8 inches long and would have stuck out from Client's jacket pocket by about 2 inches. Just as Felipe's dirk and the pointed object, Client's scissors were not "carried openly in a sheath or attached to a belt." Id. So they were either not in "plain sight". Some portion of the scissors would have been visible doesn't make sense because the defendant, Client, need not to be totally successful in concealing her scissors.B. The scissors were not "dirk or dagger" in terms of Section 12020.Dirks and daggers are weapons designed primarily for stabbing. People v. Forrest, 62 Cal. Rptr. 766, 767 (Sup. Ct. 1967). Forrest and several other motorcyclists were stopped by police officers. When he opened his jacket to reach his driver's license, the officer noticed a knife handle sticking out of his right front pants pocket. The knife was an oversized pocketknife with its bladesfolded into the handle. Forrest, 62 Cal. Rptr. at 768. The court reversed the conviction and held that the terms "dirk" and "dagger" are weapons designed primarily for stabbing and the Legislature indicated that the terms "dirk" and "dagger" did not include all knives. Id. at 767. To be a "dirk" or "dagger", the weapon must be instrument where the blades and handle are solid, or where the blade locks into place. Id. The court also cited the case People v. Ruiz, 88 Cal.App. 502, 504 (Dist. Ct. App. 1928), to define that "Dirk and dagger are used synonymously and consist of any straight stabbing weapon . . . . [T]hey may consist of any weapon fitted primarily for stabbing. " Id.Here, our Client's scissors didn't belong to that definition at all. First, the scissors were not designed or fitted primarily for stabbing but cutting. What's more, handle or grip of a pair of barber scissors was so different from that of a "dirk" and "dagger", or even the pocketknife in Forrest, that it would not be effective for the purpose of stabbing. Second, the blades were not solid or locked into place. This barber scissors could be used as "a stabbing weapon and [were] capable of inflicting death is not determinative." Forrest, 62 Cal. Rptr. at 768. Similar to the pocketknife, most scissors can be used to stab and are capable of inflicting death. But "[t]he absence of a lock on the blades so greatly limits the effectiveness as a stabbing instrument." Id. Because, as the knife in Forrest, there was danger that the blade would close up on the hand of wielder when hit a hard substance as a bone, the scissors's two opposite blades will separate out in the same situation. Thus the scissors are not a dagger or dirk.Prosecutor may argue that to be classified as a dirk or dagger, an object need not fit the common perception of a knife. Many decidedly un-knife-like objects have satisfied the definition. In re Victor B. , 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 362, 364 (Ct. App. 1994). In that case, defendant was stopped by a police officer when he was throwing rocks at passing vehicles. Then the police found the altered tire repair tool with a sharpened point in his pocket. The court held that it was a dirk or dagger as matter of law because it served no useful purpose other than stabbing. Id.Obviously, here, the fact pattern is different. The scissors had never been altered for the purpose of stabbing. And the original purpose of the pair of barber scissors, as mentioned above, is cutting instead of stabbing. Actually, the court in Victor B. cited and affirmed the opinion of the court in Forrest that the object must have been designed for the primary purpose of stabbing. Forrest, 62 Cal.Rptr. at 767. Here, the scissors had not been redesigned for additional purpose, the only purpose the court will consider is the original one.Our Client, Ms. Hastings, should be able to get the favorable judgment. A pair of unaltered barber scissors would not be regarded as a dirk or dagger because the purpose of this instrument has nothing to do with stabbing. Thus the fact that they were concealed in jacket pocket is empty of meaning.。
法律备忘录中的法律词汇和语言表述
法律备忘录中的法律词汇和语言表述法律备忘录日期：[日期]收件人：[收件人姓名]发件人：[发件人姓名]主题：法律词汇和语言表述备忘录尊敬的[收件人姓名]，根据我们之前的讨论，我整理了一份法律备忘录，旨在提供一些常用的法律词汇和语言表述，以便您在法律事务中使用。
以下是相关内容：一、法律词汇1. 合同（Contract）：一种法律文件，规定了当事人之间的权利和义务。
2. 诉讼（Litigation）：通过法律程序解决争议的过程。
3. 委托代理人（Attorney-in-fact）：被授权代表他人进行法律事务的人。
4. 侵权（Tort）：指违反法律规定，侵犯他人权益的行为。
5. 不公正竞争（Unfair competition）：指在商业活动中采取不公平手段，损害竞争对手的利益。
6. 解除合同（Termination of contract）：指根据合同条款或法律规定，终止合同关系。
7. 证人（Witness）：在法庭上提供证词的人。
二、语言表述1. 据我了解，根据相关法律规定，当事人有权要求解除合同。
2. 根据合同的约定，一方违约，另一方有权要求赔偿损失。
3. 在这起诉讼案件中，我们将提供充分的证据证明被告的侵权行为。
4. 请您提供相关证据支持您的主张。
5. 鉴于被告的不公正竞争行为，我们将采取必要的法律手段保护您的权益。
6. 根据我所了解的情况，您可以委托一位合格的律师作为您的代理人。
7. 请您提供证人证词以支持您的辩护。
请注意，以上仅为一些常用的法律词汇和语言表述，具体使用时还需根据具体案件和法律背景进行调整。
如有任何疑问或需要进一步帮助，请随时与我联系。
此致，[发件人姓名]。
备忘录 memo 金杜法律备忘录模板
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIALMemorandum to: Jeff Wood, Esq.Debevoise & Plimpton (Hong Kong)Chinese Court’s Jurisdiction Over AT &TBackground a Chinese court would have Jurisdiction overAT&T in the following transaction: * AT&T plans to invest in a Chinese-foreign joint venture company (the “Joint Venture Company”) through Pudong LLC, an offshore special purpose vehicle to be established and wholly owned by it. * Once establishe d, Pudong LLC will enter into a joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with two Chinese parties to form the Joint Venture Company. At the request of the Chinese parties, AT&T intends to provide a guarantee in the form of acomfort letter (the “Letter”) to ensure the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement. The Letter (a copy of which having been provided to us) expressly provides that it is governed by New York law and subject to the jurisdiction of New York or Federal courts in the United States. The letter is proposed to be signed by AT&T and countersigned by the Chinese parties to the Joint Venture Agreement.QuestionThe question is whether AT&T will be subject to the jurisdiction of a Chinese court by executing the Letter in the manner as described above.Short Answer* If a dispute arises from the interpretation or performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, a claim is made against Pudong LLC before a Chinese court 空 一 行 空 两 行空 两 行 空 一 行 *此为提纲挈领之部门，可促使作者在之后的法律分析中紧扣题目，故有书写此部分必要*凡冒号︑句号等表示一句终了的标点之后均空两格 左边距为3.00cm 右边距为3.00cm*客户时间有限，有时只需要简短的结论性回答距信纸抬头下边缘1.30cm空 一 行having jurisdiction over the claim, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party and the Chinese court may decide that, since the Letter is part and parcel of the Joint Venture Agreement, the court should have jurisdiction over AT&T.Analysis*Under Chinese law, contracts or agreements such as the Joint Venture Agreement which will be filed with the relevant Chinese governmental authorities for the establishment of companies such as the Joint Venture Company must be governed by Chinese law. As a parallel, China’s Civil Procedural Law provides that, in the absence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement among the parties, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise from the interpretation and performance of a contract such as the Joint Venture Agreement. Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law states: “Actions concerning disputes arising from the performance of contracts for Chinese-foreign equity joint ventures, or Chinese-foreign cooperative exploration and development of the natural resources in the PRC shall fall under the jurisdiction of PRC courts.”Since AT&T, by virtue of the Letter, provides a guarantee for the performance by Pudong LLC of its obligations under the Joint Venture Agreement, it is likely that AT&T will be named as an indispensable party to the dispute. If so, the question is whether the Chinese court will decide that it has jurisdiction over AT&T even though AT&T does not have any presence in China other than providing the guarantee.Under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law, a foreign person may be subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese court if, among other things, (i) it has a representative office in China, or (ii) it is a party to a contract which is the subject matter of the litigation, or (iii) it has assets located in China that can be attached. For example, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement will have to choose Chinese law as the governing law and, in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Chinese court will have jurisdiction over a dispute arising from the Joint Agreement by virtue by virtue of Article 246 of the Civil Procedure Law and over the parties if any of the conditions set forth under Article 243 of the Civil Procedure Law is met. On the other hand, Chinese law also permits parties to a contract to choose the governing law and the forum of dispute resolution (including foreign courts) if such a choice is not with the mandatory rules under Chinese law that provide otherwise.ConclusionBased upon the above analysis, we are of the view that the Letter, as so drafted, in and by itself does not constitute a contract that is mandatorily governed by Chinese law or over which the Chinese court will have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute arising therefrom. Chinese courts should honor the parties’ choice of law and jurisdiction in respect of the Letter.On the other hand, however, if the Chinese court determinesthat a dispute arising from the Letter constitutes a dispute of the Joint VentureSuggestions*In view of the above analysis, we would suggest the following:First, parties to the Joint Venture Agreement agree that any dispute arising therefrom should be submitted to arbitration before a well established international arbitration institution, such as the London Court of International Arbitration or the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration. Bylaw, Chinese courts should honor the parties’ choice of arbitration and reject filing of a lawsuit by any of such parties in respect of a dispute arising from the Joint Venture Agreement.Second, the language of the Letter should be adjusted soas to eliminate any suggestion or impression that AT&T is the actual party (in lieu of Pudong LLC) that makes the investment in the Joint Venture Company.Third, subject to the agreement among the Parties, the Letter should be as explicit as possible that the guarantee by AT&T is a general guarantee, and not a joint and several guarantee. Under Chinese law, in the absence of a joint and several guarantee, a party may not sue the guarantor until and unless it has exhausted its remedies against the primary obligor. This may add some additional protection for AT&T.If you have any questions, please feel free to call any of the undersigned.Zhang Yi (86-6841-0088)Quan Ruixue (86-10-6554-1155)。
U.S.Code：TableofContents｜美国法典目录
U.S.Code：TableofContents｜美国法典目录美国大法学家哈罗德·伯尔曼曾提出：法律必须被信仰，否则它将形同虚设（The lawmust be faith, otherwise it will be useless）.Title 1. General Provisions(第一卷总则)Title 2. The Congress(第二卷国会)Title 3. The President(第三卷总统)Title 4. Flag and Seal， Seat of Government， and the S tates(第四卷国旗，国章，政府部门和联邦各州)Title 5. Government Organization and Employees; and A ppendix(第五卷政府组织与雇员，及附录)Title 6. Surety Bonds (Repealed) [第六卷担保债券(已废除)] Title 7. Agriculture(第七卷农业)Title 8. Aliens and Nationality (第八卷外国人与国籍)Title 9. Arbitration(第九卷仲裁)Title 10. Armed Forces; and Appendix (第十卷武装力量，及附录)Title 11. Bankruptcy; and Appendix(第十一卷破产，及附录)Title 12. Bank and Banking(第十二卷银行与金融)Title 13. Census(第十三卷人口普查)Title 14. Coast Guard(第十四卷海岸警卫)Title 15. Commerce and Trade(第十五卷商业与贸易)Title 16. Conservation(第十六卷资源保护)Title 17. Copyrights(第十七卷版权)Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure; and Appendix (第十八卷犯罪与刑事程序，及附录)Title 19. Customs Duties(第十九卷关税)Title 20. Education(第二十卷教育)Title 21. Food and Drugs(第二十一卷食品与药品)Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse(第二十二卷对外关系)Title 23. Highway(第二十三卷公路)Title 24. Hospitals and Asylums(第二十四卷医院与收容所)Title 25. Indians(第二十五卷印第安人)Title 26. Internal Revenue Code; and Appendix(第二十六卷财政收入法典，及附录)Title 27. Intoxicating Liquors(第二十七卷麻醉性酒精)Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure; and Appendix (第二十八卷司法与司法程序，及附录)Title 29. Labor(第二十九卷劳工)Title 30. Mineral Lands and Mining(第三十卷矿藏和采矿)Title 31 Money and Finance(第三十一卷货币与财政)Title 32. National Guard(第三十二卷国民警卫)Title 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters(第三十三卷航运与可航水域)Title 34. Navy (Repealed)[第三十四卷海军(已废除)]Title 35. Patents(第三十五卷专利)Title 36. Patriotic Societies and Observances(第三十六卷宗教习俗)Title 37. Pay and Allowances of the Uniformed Services (第三十七卷规制行业薪金与津贴)Title 38. Veterans' Benefits; and Appendix(第三十八卷退伍军人救济金，及附录)Title 39. Postal Service(第三十九卷邮政事业)Title 40. Public Buildings， Property， and Works; and Ap pendix(第四十卷公共建筑，财产和设施，及附录)Title 41. Public Contracts(第四十一卷公共合同)Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare (第四十二卷公共卫生与福利)Title 43. Public Lands(第四十三卷公共土地)Title 44. Public Printing and Documents(第四十四卷国家印刷品与文献)Title 45. Railroads(第四十五卷铁路)Title 46. Shipping; and Appendix(第四十六卷航运，及附录)Title 47. Telegraphs， Telephones， and Radiotelegraphs (第四十七卷电报，电话和无线电报)Title 48. Territories and Insular Possessions(第四十八卷领土与岛屿所有权)Title 49. Transportation(第四十九卷交通)Title 50. War and National Defense; and Appendix(第五十卷战争与国防，及附录)。
美国法律术语翻译参考
美国法律术语翻译参考第一篇：美国法律术语翻译参考美国法律术语翻译参考二、在不会造成歧解的情况下，译文尽可能使用通俗语言（例如套用国内法律术语），例如statutes and laws只译作“法律”，而不是“成文法和惯例法”，也并不逐字逐句直译，例如file an application for a Court order(“application”)中括号内的文字，又如对法律条文的引用（50 U.S.C.§ 1803(g)译成《美国法典》第几章第几节第几条对普通读者毫无意义，反而不方便有兴趣的读者查阅有关法律条文、专业人员引用），同理1806(k)连用时不处理为第1806条第11款，甚至保留(a)等美式序号而不是处理为汉语序号（比如说第一款）。
三、美国法律术语并没有完整而权威的译文，为此，译者将可能存在不同译法的术语汇编如下，不在正文中第一次出现时附原文，以便阅读和检索。
需要加以注释才能防止歧解的术语，包括表面上可能是普通语言实际上却是术语的措辞，如“美国人”（a United States person）；未在此处汇报的部分专有名词和术语在第一次出现会附上原文（包括绝大多数人名）。
容易望文生义或错误理解但不影响专业人员的术语不进行通俗处理，也不加解释，如“救济”（relief，不处理为比如说“赔偿”，司法救济在国内已是通用术语）。
adversary proceeding 对质式诉讼；在大多数普通法国家中，双方当事人在这种诉讼中承担发现并展示证据的主要责任，独立的法官不调查事实（参见《朗文法律词典》第六版）adversary hearing 对质听证会，指双方当事人出庭辩论affirm 维持（原判决或裁定、原命令、原指示）affirmation 不以宣誓方式表述的确认（证词）；on oath or affirmation以宣誓或郑重保证的方式 affidavit 誓书；在公证人或其他获得授权的官员面前宣誓，从而提供的书面证词a foreign power：外国势力（通译就是外国），在《对外情报侦察法》中具有特定含义：外国政府；外国政府的外交官、其他代表或雇员；主要不由美国人构成的某个外国的一部分；外国政府公开承认受其指导和控制的某个实体；参与国际恐怖主义或为此而准备的活动的团体。
美国法律英文备忘录
MemorandumTo: Martha MarplesFrom: Yang LiRe:“driving” under the influence of alcoholDate: unknownRobin Shymite,our client, he has decided to drive the car after drunk 2 or 3 bears, but failed to drive as he feel too tired to drive, and then sleep in the driver’s seat. The police officer approached the car and insisted that he had the alcohol test, then the policeman put him in jail. One day later, his friend arranged for his release, and our client worried about he will lose the medical license if convicted of driving while intoxicated.Issue: Does Shymite’s conduct constitute “driving” the car while intoxicated because he admitted he drink bears and decided to drive home when leaving the bar, though he did not actually drive the car away, but sleep instead.Short Answer: Shymite’s conduct probably not constitutes a driving under the influence of alcohol and his action has not violated RSA 265:82, as he turned off the engine and decided not to drive the car before falling asleep. Shymite is passive and is not immediately going to control the car, rather than using the car for a rest.Facts: Shymite drunk two or three bear in the local bar. When leaving the bar, Shymite decided to drive home, but before moving the car, he realized that he was too tired to drive. He turned off the engine. However, he left the keys in the ignition so that he could listen to the radio while resting. Approximately one and half hour later, the policemen found him in the car and woke him up. The policeman insisted he was fialed the alcohol test and put him in jail.Discussion:RSA 265:82 No person shall drive or attempt to drive a vehicle upon any way: (a) While such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drugs; or (b) While such person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or in the case of a person under the age of 21, 0.02 or more.“Dr iving” for purposes of RSA 265:82 means operating or having actual physical control of the vehicle.If the defendant had started his car before falling asleep—if so, then he was in actual physical control while awake and in the driver’s seat. The court says that the word “drive” does not necessarily mean “operate.” The court says that if the occupant of the car is totally passive and has not actively tried to control or is not imminently going to control the car, then that occupant should not be penalized by thelaw. State v. Willard, 660 A.2d 1086 (N.H. 1995) (June).“Driving” for purposes of RSA 265:82 means actual physical control of the vehicle. “Actual physical control” varies according to the facts of the case, but when it is reasonable to assume that the defendant will be imminently operating a vehicle rather than using the vehicle for stationary shelter, the defendant will be found to be in actual physical control. State v. Holloran, 669 A.2d 800 (N.H. 1995) (December)In Williard case, the vehicle’s engine was idling, and the defendant was asleep. The court holds that if the defendant had started his car before falling asleep, he was in actual physical control while awake and in the driver’s seat. Just like the Williard, Shymite also started the car before falling asleep. His action also constitutes the actual physical control of the car. However, unlike Williard case, in this case, Shymite turned off the engine instead. Shymite has decided not to drive the car and he turned off the engine, according to this action, it is reasonable to believe Shymite is merely using the car for resting rather than driving home. Hence, though like the Willard, Shymite was in actual physical control of the car, but he is not attempt to drive the car.In Holloran Case, the court holds that the defendant was driving and in actual physical control of his vehicle when found sitting behind the wheel, the keys in the ignition, the vehicle parked, and engine and lights off. Just like the Holloran Case, Shymite also left the key in the ignition. However, unlike Holloran Case, Shymite turned off the engine before falling asleep, and he left the key only for listening the radio while have a rest. Shymite was only using the car for shelter, and his conduct cannot constitute the actual physical control of the car. Hence, his action does not constitute a RSA 265:82 violation.PredictionShymite’s conduct does not constitute a RAS 265:82 violaion. In this case, Shymite does not actually operate the car, and also not going to start the car. Provided the facts show that Shymite has changed his mind and decided not to drive instead. Hence, he did not attempt to drive the car, but stay in the car for a rest. He has turned off the engine and left the key in the ignition only for radio listening. He shall not be convicted of driving while intoxicated.。
法律英语备忘录-我写的
法律英语备忘录-我写的MEMORANDUMTo: JimFrom: Paul Student NO.: 2100070115Date: Dec. 20th,2010Re: LLM Final AssignmentFacts：Our client XYZ, a Florida Corporation, has entered into a contractwith Plaintiff Paul Posner. The contract contains a “Forum Selection” clause which states : “Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all claims, disputes and other matters in question arising outof or relating to this Agreement, including the breach or interpretation hereof (collectively, “Disputes”), shall be brought in a Court located in Florida which Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction.”Now, Paul Posner, an Illinois resident, has filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the Northern District of Illinois requesting the Court to enter a Declaratory Judgment finding that the‘forum selection’ provision of the Contract is unenforceable.Issue：1、Is “Forum Selection” clause enforceable or unenforceable?2、Is United States Court for the Northern District of Illinoisa proper venue to decide this case ?Rule of Law：Since its seminal decision in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-ShoreCo., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), the United States Supreme Court and Virginia Courts have consistently accorded choice of forum and choice of law provisions presumptive validity. see also Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 538 (1995); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991). This freedom to choose a forum is also recognized under Florida law, which the parties chose to use in resolving disputes under the Contract. See Paul Business Systems, Inc. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 397 S.E.2d 804, 807 (Va. 1990) (embracing "the modern view" that choice of forum clauses are "prima facie valid").Because the "choice of law" and "forum selection" clauses of the Contract are "prima facie valid," the Plaintiff has the "heavy burden of proof" of overcoming the presumption of enforceability. The court in Ashen den v. Lloyd’s of London held that Forum Selection clauses were prima facie valid and should be enforced unless shown to be unreasonable under those circumstances:(1) if their incorporation into the contract was the result of fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power; (2) if the selected forum was so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the complaining party would for all practical purposes be deprived of its day in court; or (3) if enforcement of the clauses would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit was brought, declared by statute, or judicial decision.And Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (3) stetes that "improper venue" can be filed. If Pursuant chooses the court which is improper, his lawsuit will not be accepted.When, as here, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, venue is proper in either: (1) a judicial district where anydefendant resides or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.28 U.S.C. 1391(b).Moreover, “once an objection to venue has been raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that venue isproper.”D'Anton Jos, S.L. v. Doll Factory, Inc., 937 F.Supp. 320, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Plaintiffs, therefore, bear the burden of establishing that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in the Eastern District of New York. Id; see also French Transit, Ltd. v. Modern Coupon Systems, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 22, 25 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).Analysis：The "Forum Selection" clause at issue is contained in Section 22 of the Contract which our client entered into with Plaintiff on the Principle of Autonomy of will. Pursuant to this article, our client XYZ is herein endowed with a right of forum-selecting.In this case ,The plaintiff can not offer any evidence to prove that the “Forum Selection clause”does not satisfy the three circumstances mentioned above .what matters is not “it is in the interest of both Illinois and Florida for courts in Illinois to determine disputes brought by Illinois Citizens regarding Illinois contracts…” ,but that the plaintiff need to prove that the forum selection clause is unfair or will cause inconvenience .Where defendant challenges venue under Rule 12(b)(3), plaintiff has burden of proving that venue is proper in filing district. The “Forum Selection clause”is reasonable and enforceable because the plaintiff can not produce evidence to turn down it.And secondly if the clause is intended by the parties to be mandatory, each party hereby waives any right it may have to assert the doctrine of forum non convenience or similar doctrineor to object to venue with respect to any proceeding brought in accordance with this clause.Based on the analysis mentioned above, we know The “Forum Selection clause”is enforceable which will accordingly leading to the conclusion that The United States Court for the Northern District of Illinois is not a proper venue to decide this case because the defendant have to right to choose the court which of course will be the Florida court .Conclusion：According to the foregoing analysis, “Forum Selection” clause in this case is valid and enforceable. Illinois is “improper venue” and Florida is a proper venue in this case. The case shall be accepted and heard in a Florida court Florida court as true venue have the exclusive jurisdiction. Pursuant to FRCP 12 (b) (3), we can make a motion to dismiss for Illinois court lacking of proper venue.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
MemorandumTo: Martha MarplesFrom: Yang LiRe:“driving” under the influence of alcoholDate: unknownRobin Shymite,our client, he has decided to drive the car after drunk 2 or 3 bears, but failed to drive as he feel too tired to drive, and then sleep in the driver’s seat. The police officer approached the car and insisted that he had the alcohol test, then the policeman put him in jail. One day later, his friend arranged for his release, and our client worried about he will lose the medical license if convicted of driving while intoxicated.Issue: Does Shymite’s conduct constitute “driving” the car while intoxicated because he admitted he drink bears and decided to drive home when leaving the bar, though he did not actually drive the car away, but sleep instead.Short Answer: Shymite’s conduct probably not constitutes a driving under the influence of alcohol and his action has not violated RSA 265:82, as he turned off the engine and decided not to drive the car before falling asleep. Shymite is passive and is not immediately going to control the car, rather than using the car for a rest.Facts: Shymite drunk two or three bear in the local bar. When leaving the bar, Shymite decided to drive home, but before moving the car, he realized that he was too tired to drive. He turned off the engine. However, he left the keys in the ignition so that he could listen to the radio while resting. Approximately one and half hour later, the policemen found him in the car and woke him up. The policeman insisted he was fialed the alcohol test and put him in jail.Discussion:RSA 265:82 No person shall drive or attempt to drive a vehicle upon any way: (a) While such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drugs; or (b) While such person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or in the case of a person under the age of 21, 0.02 or more.“Dr iving” for purposes of RSA 265:82 means operating or having actual physical control of the vehicle.If the defendant had started his car before falling asleep—if so, then he was in actual physical control while awake and in the driver’s seat. The court says that the word “drive” does not necessarily mean “operate.” The court says that if the occupant of the car is totally passive and has not actively tried to control or is not imminently going to control the car, then that occupant should not be penalized by thelaw. State v. Willard, 660 A.2d 1086 (N.H. 1995) (June).“Driving” for purposes of RSA 265:82 means actual physical control of the vehicle. “Actual physical control” varies according to the facts of the case, but when it is reasonable to assume that the defendant will be imminently operating a vehicle rather than using the vehicle for stationary shelter, the defendant will be found to be in actual physical control. State v. Holloran, 669 A.2d 800 (N.H. 1995) (December)In Williard case, the vehicle’s engine was idling, and the defendant was asleep. The court holds that if the defendant had started his car before falling asleep, he was in actual physical control while awake and in the driver’s seat. Just like the Williard, Shymite also started the car before falling asleep. His action also constitutes the actual physical control of the car. However, unlike Williard case, in this case, Shymite turned off the engine instead. Shymite has decided not to drive the car and he turned off the engine, according to this action, it is reasonable to believe Shymite is merely using the car for resting rather than driving home. Hence, though like the Willard, Shymite was in actual physical control of the car, but he is not attempt to drive the car.In Holloran Case, the court holds that the defendant was driving and in actual physical control of his vehicle when found sitting behind the wheel, the keys in the ignition, the vehicle parked, and engine and lights off. Just like the Holloran Case, Shymite also left the key in the ignition. However, unlike Holloran Case, Shymite turned off the engine before falling asleep, and he left the key only for listening the radio while have a rest. Shymite was only using the car for shelter, and his conduct cannot constitute the actual physical control of the car. Hence, his action does not constitute a RSA 265:82 violation.PredictionShymite’s conduct does not constitute a RAS 265:82 violaion. In this case, Shymite does not actually operate the car, and also not going to start the car. Provided the facts show that Shymite has changed his mind and decided not to drive instead. Hence, he did not attempt to drive the car, but stay in the car for a rest. He has turned off the engine and left the key in the ignition only for radio listening. He shall not be convicted of driving while intoxicated.。