At the end, the post itself adds
the following as a footnote:
Not exact matches
A. C. Fraser
footnotes «causes *»
as follows: «i.e., occasions.
But the city's proposal has sparked skepticism — stoked by Uber — because it resembles one put forth by the yellow taxi industry, and because anything the de Blasio administration does that helps yellow taxis (no matter how earnestly intentioned) requires the
following footnote: the industry donated prolifically to his mayoral campaign even
as he parroted their rhetoric on everything from borough taxis to the Taxi of Tomorrow.
In one chapter, 100 pages long, the manipulations are so heavy and the argument so terse that he adds the
following footnote: «The reductions that are necessary to go from one step to another [in this chapter] are often very elaborate and, on occasion, may require
as many
as ten, twenty, or even fifty pages.
Growth from 3,000 titles to 30,000 titles is impressive, until one
follows a
footnote to the Sweeney's article that Mr. Grady links to
as the source of that number.
If you refer again to Young's work later on in your Chicago format paper, you would write that
footnote or endnote
as follows:
The
footnote would be placed at the bottom of the page, single - spaced,
as follows:
A
footnote to the 10Q defines them
as follows «DGCL 281 (b) requires the Company to pay or make reasonable provision for the payment of all claims and obligations (including all contingent, conditional or unmatured contractual claims), claims that are subject to pending actions, suits or proceedings against the company and claims that have not arisen or been made known to the Company but are likely to arise or become known within 10 years of dissolution.»
However,
footnote 1 in the 10K defines the line item «financial investments»
as follows: «The Company's financial instruments are recorded within the Statement of Financial Condition at fair value.
Information related to these securities is
as follows (except if otherwise
footnoted, these securities are liquid):
The reality is that climatologists currently have no adequate basis for quantitative projections of 21st century sea level, and they should say so
as the main conclusion of the sea level section, not in hard - to -
follow footnotes.
19 A few
footnotes later, he snidely observed
as follows:
Footnote: 6 Text
as amended in accordance with article V of the Protocol, Article 37
as originally adopted in the Limitation Convention, 1974, prior to its amendment under the 1980 Protocol, read
as follows: