Search for: "P. v. Stark" Results 21 - 40 of 442
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2023, 6:36 pm by admin
P v Q v R ~P­­­_____ ∴ Q v R      ~Q­­­_____ ∴ R Hence, the term “iterative disjunctive syllogism. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 4:18 am by INFORRM
For example, the header to p. 8, which represents a summary of the responses to questions 1-7, is called ‘Evidence and Impact of SLAPPs litigation’ but by p. 14, which provides fuller details (or is meant to), ‘Evidence’ has dropped out of the picture altogether and the section is called ‘Impact on SLAPPs recipients’. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am by admin
The Bradford Hill Predicate: Ruling Out Random and Systematic Error In two recent posts, I spent some time discussing a recent law review, which had some important things to say about specific causation.[1] One of several points from which I dissented was the article’s argument that Sir Austin Bradford Hill had not made explicit that ruling out random and systematic error was required before assessing his nine “viewpoints” on whether an association was causal. [read post]
11 Oct 2021, 1:13 pm by Eugene Volokh
App. 1986), aff'd on other grounds, 770 P.2d 1027 (Wash. 1989); Karuza v. [read post]