Sentences with phrase «for factual material»

The classic in the field is History of Religions, by George Foote Moore, a scholarly introduction done some fifty years ago and still useful for factual material.

Not exact matches

This material has been prepared for informational purposes only, based on publicly available factual information.

Conservatives and evangelical fundamentalists turned the text into source material for propositions and developed highly artificial harmonizations of conflicting factual statements that created internal «solutions» not found in scripture at all.

Currently companies produce materials for families and health professionals that is not «scientific and factual» as required by law.

The redactions — rendered in the released files as white blanks — make the material hard to follow at times: A section titled «The Factual Basis for the Conclusions» is thereafter blank for 47 pages.

The source material is a novel by David Ebershoff, which plunks The Danish Girl somewhere midway between a loosely factual historical drama and a literary adaptation; besides lopping a few decades off the story, it presents Gerda Wegener as strictly straight, whereas her historical counterpart is best remembered for her lesbian erotica, full of pale young women with speck noses, tiny feet, and chicken - leg thighs.

If the material is at times excessively thick with factual detail, it is marvelously thin on ideological moralizing and full of practical suggestions for improving the law.

The students are also more focused, more diligent in finding factual information, and more energized about the material being studied when they know that they are going to use the green screen for their presentations.

Advantages Factual material is presented in a direct, logical manner May provide experiences that inspire - useful for large groups Most efficient way to convey teacher spoken information

For example, scenarios reinforce concepts by applying the material presented in real - world situations., while posing questions and providing guidance to learners as to how to research the answer rather than simply giving them factual information in the form of lecture content or quiz question feedback is another open inquiry technique.

Information books are defined as those written and illustrated to present, organize, and interpret documentable, factual material for children.

(1) A credit services organization, its salespersons, agents, and representatives, and independent contractors who sell or attempt to sell the services of a credit services organization may not do any of the following: (a) conduct any business regulated by this chapter without first: (i) securing a certificate of registration from the division; and (ii) unless exempted under Section 13 -21-4, posting a bond, letter of credit, or certificate of deposit with the division in the amount of $ 100,000; (b) make a false statement, or fail to state a material fact, in connection with an application for registration with the division; (c) charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration prior to full and complete performance of the services the credit services organization has agreed to perform for the buyer; (d) dispute or challenge, or assist a person in disputing or challenging an entry in a credit report prepared by a consumer reporting agency without a factual basis for believing and obtaining a written statement for each entry from the person stating that that person believes that the entry contains a material error or omission, outdated information, inaccurate information, or unverifiable information; (e) charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration solely for referral of the buyer to a retail seller who will or may extend credit to the buyer, if the credit that is or will be extended to the buyer is upon substantially the same terms as those available to the general public; (f) make, or counsel or advise any buyer to make, any statement that is untrue or misleading and that is known, or that by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, to a credit reporting agency or to any person who has extended credit to a buyer or to whom a buyer is applying for an extension of credit, with respect to a buyer's creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity; (g) make or use any untrue or misleading representations in the offer or sale of the services of a credit services organization or engage, directly or indirectly, in any act, practice, or course of business that operates or would operate as fraud or deception upon any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of a credit services organization; and (h) transact any business as a credit services organization, as defined in Section 13 -21-2, without first having registered with the division by paying an annual fee set pursuant to Section 63J -1-504 and filing proof that it has obtained a bond or letter of credit as required by Subsection (2).

From the guidelines; Approval of the Summary for Policymakers at the Session of the Working Group, signifies that it is consistent with the factual material contained in the full scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment or Special Report accepted by the Working Group.

Exceptionally, however, courts have accepted that a plaintiff may be able to recover on the basis of «material contribution to risk of injury», without showing factual «but for» causation.

stated that it «must ascertain whether the domestic courts conducted an in - depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature, and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the

Ntrepid Timestream is a budding resource for organizing factual material electronically at an affordable price ($ 995 for a single - user one year license).

And, it's at least plausible that some judges of the Supreme Court of Canada (even some in Ontario and elsewhere) might find the suggestion that Athey material contribution was never a separate test for proof of factual causation just a wee bit controversial.

Also, in B.C., since Resurfice some appellate judges seem to have expressed the view (not in dissenting reasons) that the Athey material contribution test was never a separate test for proof of factual causation in negligence but merely a causal «yardstick» explaining when the but - for test applies.

As you will see from the balance of the trial judge's discussion of causation law, it seems that the trial judge thought that Resurfice material contribution is merely a restatement of Athey material contribution, therefore a test for factual causation.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held in Frazer v. Haukioja: «Factual causation can be established in two ways: the «but for» test and the «material contribution'test.

The result of that, for all practical purposes — it took about a year — was that an «Ivory Snow pure» number of trial judges stopped formally using Athey material contribution to decide whether factual causation was established on the balance of probability.

However, citing the Ontario Court of Appeal's affirming ruling in this Healey, Annis J. held that this case was well suited for summary judgment because there was little in dispute of a factual nature as it was largely based on materials taken from various blogs.

While the example above clearly has significant factual issues, either party in a negligence lawsuit can bring a motion for summary judgment if there are no issues of material fact or where it is clear that the other party can not prove one of the elements of negligence.

Ultimately, the Third Circuit held there was a material question as to whether the estate relied on the advice of counsel in not paying the tax due and remanded the case for that factual determination.

[36] Some have suggested that «but for» proof must be logically or conceptually impossible before material contribution to risk is available... Clearly the impossibility in those examples was related to difficulties with factual proof, not to logical problems inherent in the peculiarities of the case.

As I've said to others, were I a trial judge who sat on civil trials before Resurfice, I'd not know whether to be bemused or astounded at the suggested that the version of material contribution I applied then — which would have been the Athey version — was NOT a test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability.

If we accept that Athey material contribution to injury is dead, and was probably a suspect concept to begin with, then «factual causation» = «but for necessary cause of injury».

Where there exists factual findings of risk and injury, due to material contributions of a complex environment (where people interact), and in the absence of direct causation under the but - for test, would «all» be deemed indivisible in establishing causation under this ruling?

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.

in reasons written by McLachlin CJ seemingly rejected, killed, and buried the Athey meaning of material contribution or materially contributed as a test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability.

For now, Resurfice material contribution applies only in the situations described by Clements in para. 39, where the Court provided an explanation of the meaning of Resurfice «s «impossible to establish factual causation on the balance of probability using the but - for test.&raqFor now, Resurfice material contribution applies only in the situations described by Clements in para. 39, where the Court provided an explanation of the meaning of Resurfice «s «impossible to establish factual causation on the balance of probability using the but - for test.&raqfor test.»

As written, Athey's material contribution test is a separate test for the existence of factual causation.

Resurfice seemingly declared an entirely different meaning for material contribution or materially contributed which eliminated the need, under that that test, to prove factual causation on the balance of probability and, in so doing, removed the concept of «material contribution» or «materially contributes» from the but - for lexicon.

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:

I'm trying to gather anecdotal information as to whether the SCC decision in Resurfice v Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 and the «material contribution» doctrine mentioned in the case are helping plaintiffs get before - trial settlements — by using the Resurfice «material contribution» notion to get them past difficulties in proving factual causation using the «but - for» test — which are settlements that they might not have been able to get before Resurfice.

The SCC was, and is, correct in stating that if the ABCA's view was correct, the Athey material contribution test, as the ABCA understood it, had become the default test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability in negligence actions.

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.

We also haven't seen any cases where a judge said that he or she, before Resurfice, would have found the factual causation issue in favour of the plaintiff using Athey material contribution — finding factual causation on the balance of probability — but, as a result of Resurfice, is now required to use the but - for test and, on the facts, must find the plaintiff failed to establish factual causation on the balance of probability.

While the SCC rejected the details of the Clements analysis of Resurfice material contribution, the SCC seems to have accepted the BCCA explanation that Resurfice material contribution is not a test for factual causation but a policy — based approach that, in certain circumstances, will permit the courts to hold the caausation requirements of the cause of action have been satisfied notwithsanding that factual causation has not been established on the balance of probability.

The trial judge noted the distinction between the «but for» test for factual causation and the «material contribution to the risk of injury» test, but ultimately found this case not to be the exceptional one in which the material contribution test to determine cause - in - fact should be used.

The court held that such protection is available for publications which include compilations of factual materials.