Sentences with phrase «whatever factual causation»

Not exact matches

Whatever else Clements means, it unquestionably holds that the but - for test is a test based on «necessity», not merely «substantial connection» beyond de minimus, and that «material contribution» is not a reference to some method of establishing factual causation on the balance of probability.

Whatever Athey material contribution meant before Resurfice (2007) and before Clements, it was (then) understood as an alternative method for establishing factual causation on the balance of probability.

And if it's not about factual causation, then it couldn't have been intended as a replacement for Athey material contribution which (whatever it meant) was, seemingly, about factual causation, right?

It was part of the definition of «contributed» for the alternative test for factual causation (whatever it meant) that eventually came to be called the Athey material contribution test:

It necessarily follows, although the the Supreme Court did not explicitly say this so, that Athey material contribution, whatever it meant before 2007 as a method for establishing factual causation on the balance of probability, is as dead as the proverbial Monty Python Norweigian blue parrot.

That doctrine, whatever else it means, is NOT an alternative method for establishing factual causation on the balance of probability.