Sentences with phrase «expert evidence in question»

56 In Mohan, Sopinka J. held that the expert evidence in question had to be more than merely helpful.

Not exact matches

A lengthy, well - researched, and powerful article in the Spring 2015 issue of the NCAA's Champion magazine, not only reports the belief of many top concussion experts that the media narrative about sports - related concussion trace has been dominated by media reports on the work of Dr. Ann McKee, which was the centerpiece of PBS Frontline's League of Denial, but Dr. McKee's, however belated, mea culpa that «There's no question [that her autopsies finding evidence of CTE in the brains of most of the former athletes were] a very biased study,» that they involved «a certain level of... sensationalism», that there were «times when it's overblown» and went «a little too far.»

The AG's report further suggests the Troy police department should overhaul its investigative approach to officer - involved shootings; abstain from prejudging (and publicly announcing) the results of an investigation before it has been completed; make broad efforts to identify and promptly speak with all civilian witnesses; and properly train investiagtors in the evaluation of evidence, as well as reaching out to outside experts when questions arise.

Experts in the field have questioned the validity of this term because of the lack of direct evidence in this group of patients of ongoing infection with Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease.

Questions regarding the validity of scientific evidence and the credentials of some experts are the background to the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc..

Ask participants to talk in small groups about what evidence they saw of a good project (for example, the project revolved around a real - world topic; students were involved in project definition by suggesting questions; experts were included).

12.1 Can identify their own learning needs and professional development goals, and uses these to create a long term plan for professional learning 12.2 Engages in a range of different formal and informal professional learning opportunities to ensure they maintain an up - to - date professional knowledge 12.3 Proactively seeks out appropriate professional learning opportunities and evaluates professional learning opportunities to determine quality and suitability 12.4 Understands effective methods for engaging in, and evaluating professional learning, both for individuals and when working with colleagues 12.5 Is open to questioning and challenging their own practice, values and beliefs in light of new evidence and expert input.

In any case, the question remains: If climate change is supposed to unleash waves of horrifying natural disasters as climate experts claim, why aren't we seeing any evidence of it here?

Ideas are tested many times, and when the supporting evidence becomes overwhelming, an expert consensus forms that the idea in question is probably correct.

Maybe you're smarter than the predominant opinion among experts — but two questions need to be asked: (1) to what degree is your view of the evidenced biased by your ideological identity (you clearly have a very strong ideological identity on this issue) and, (2) how could you possibly state a certainty about such a counterfactual in such a highly uncertain context?

But like «climate change», road safety has been over-run by the «think of the children» brigade and in the process logic, common sense and plain good practice have been tossed aside to placate the loudest speaker making the most outrageous clams, despite significant evidence to the contrary, and anyone who dares to question the received wisdom of these self - appointed «experts» is (metaphorically at least) tarred and feathered and completely ignored — to the detriment of the very people these «experts» think they are helping.

I am still interested in your answer to my question: who, in your opinion, is providing the best available expert evidence?

And you still haven't answered the question as to what is the ideal climate, how does it differ from today's climate, who determined the ideal climate, what factors were evaluated in making the determination, what evidence confirms that the controls on anthropogenic CO2 proposed by the climate experts would indeed establish and maintain the optimum climate, and whether the the political, economic, and social changes that would be required to do the controlling would on balance be less harmful than the effects of the postulated (but unsubstantiated) climate changes.

[13]... the Court must answer the narrow question of whether it is strictly necessary, in order to support a finding of legally compensable mental injury, for a claimant to adduce expert evidence or other proof of a recognized psychiatric illness.

Micro-match Having listened to the disputed expert evidence — and studied pictorial depictions of the ear in question — the court's judgment was that ear print comparison was capable of providing information which could identify the person who had left such a print on a surface where minutiae concerning the ear could be identified and matched.

[6] The Westerhof appeal raises the question of whether rule 53.03 applies only to experts described in rule 4.1.01 and Form 53 — experts «engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide [opinion] evidence in relation to a proceeding» (referred to in these reasons as «litigation experts»)-- or whether it applies more broadly to all witnesses with special expertise who give opinion evidence.

«Questions to Expert» do not necessarily offer an opportunity to cross examine an expert and if the expert is not to give oral evidence there is no formal procedure set down in CPR to cross examine an expert witness in writing.

I do think the idea of allowing something close to judicial notice in place of expert evidence could only have one of two effects: 1) The judge would have decide on a case - by - case basis whether he or she is qualified to advise himself / herself as to «law» generally, or 2) The judge would have to undertake a self - qualification analysis to determine whether he or she is sufficiently expert in the area of law in question to forego actual expert evidence.

She has appeared in the following reported cases: S v S [2017] EWHC 1298 (Fam) involving a fact - finding about allegations of grave harm to the mother and the child and evidence from experts in Iranian family law; and Re: Rodwell [2016] EWHC 1731 (Fam), which centred on questions about whether the court had jurisdiction to make orders concerning the family.

The question is, in this new costs budgeting Jackson era, will the prospect of «hot - tubbing» — otherwise known as concurrent evidence (ie, the method of giving evidence where the experts sit in the box together and the judge chairs a discussion between them)-- ensure that cases like this get resolved sooner rather than later — no doubt time will tell.

· The correct judicial response to the question of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in an expert opinion is not to withdraw the evidence from the trier of fact unless, of course, there are some other factors at play such that it will be prejudicial to one party, but rather to address the weight of the opinion and the reliability of the hearsay in an appropriate self - instruction or instruction to a jury.

There is nothing in these Rules touching directly on the question of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in expert reports.

This is when experts for opposing parties give evidence in each other's presence and in front of the judge, who puts the same questions to each expert in turn, effectively acting as «chair» of a debate between the experts.

Of course the next obvious question is why didn't the plaintiff lawyers call the regulatory College (CPO) to confirm that this «opposing expert» was in fact properly qualified to proffer neuropsychological opinion evidence for the defence in brain injury cases?

The Senior President stated that there was a serious question as to whether there had been a sufficient analysis of the evidence and how the court had resolved the serious disagreements in the expert evidence so as to conduct the proportionality exercise.

The CAT observed that the experts» oral evidence in response to questions from the Tribunal was «considerably more sophisticated and nuanced than that set out, rather briefly, in their Experts» Report» (§ 76), but it still could not be satisfied that the damages sought would broadly reflect «the governing principle of damages for breach of competition law», that is, «restoration of the claimants to the position they would have been in but for the breach» experts» oral evidence in response to questions from the Tribunal was «considerably more sophisticated and nuanced than that set out, rather briefly, in their Experts» Report» (§ 76), but it still could not be satisfied that the damages sought would broadly reflect «the governing principle of damages for breach of competition law», that is, «restoration of the claimants to the position they would have been in but for the breach» Experts» Report» (§ 76), but it still could not be satisfied that the damages sought would broadly reflect «the governing principle of damages for breach of competition law», that is, «restoration of the claimants to the position they would have been in but for the breach» (§ 88).

A number of recent cases involving testamentary capacity have raised questions on the golden rule... In Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449 the rule was observed, but the trial judge held, largely on the basis of the evidence of experts who had not seen the deceased, that the will was invalid, and the Court of Appeal upheld his decision.

His favourite cross is when he has no questions at all, «and it's better to make the expert look OK for the evidence in chief,» Osborne says.

It was to be observed that (i) there was no express provision within the Disqualification Rules dealing with expert evidence; (ii) where a question of expert evidence did arise, the CPR provisions dealing with expert evidence would apply; (iii) it was within the scheme of the Disqualification Rules for a question or questions requiring expert evidence to be identified at the first hearing of the application and for the court at that stage to give directions for the filing and service of such evidence; and (iv) it followed that expert evidence ultimately used by a claimant in support of the application or that a defendant ultimately wished the court to take into consideration might not have been filed and served by the first hearing of the application.

«75... the Tribunals did not have before them expert evidence which seriously called into question the principle underpinning the EPA's renewable energy project regulatory regime — i.e. that wind turbines which are set back 550m from a dwelling house and which do not generate noise levels in excess of 40 dBA at the lowest specified wind speed do not cause serious harm to human health based upon the current state of scientific knowledge.»

Litigation attorneys utilize motions in limine to exclude the other party's evidence, expert witnesses to question each other's parenting ability or mental stability, and forensic accountants to publicly pick apart private businesses, among other methods.