@Barmar the weasel word opens up
the possibility of a reasonable person standard, meaning that jurors wouldn't have to determine whether they actually think the accused had such an intention, but only whether a «reasonable person» might make such a determination.
Not exact matches
What is not entirely clear is whether Stackhouse is claiming that we must assume the
possibility of probative weighing
of theological theories and
of meaningful disagreements about them, or whether he is claiming that such probing has in fact been accomplished and that the disagreements have in fact been resolved in ways that no
reasonable person could deny, and that somebody knows what the results are.
It's something that might cross the mind
of a
reasonable and prudent
person as an outside
possibility, but it's certainly not the sort
of thing one loses sleep over on an ongoing basis.
Its definition is intentionally vague to increase the
possibility of compromise on thorny issues on which
reasonable people may differ.
perhaps you might consider the
possibility that when a large number
of people with a
reasonable level
of competence examine a bad bit
of science they can all identify the faults.
A
person who communicates Such a
person communicates information unilaterally to a lawyer, without any
reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the
possibility of forming a client - lawyer relationship, and is thus not a «prospective client.»
The employment or self - employment is
of a type in which it would be
reasonable to expect the insured
person to engage, having regard to the
possibility of deterioration in the insured
person's impairment and to the insured
person's personal and vocational characteristics.
Yes, on their own paras 94 - 95 and 103 could be read to suggest that, but I think it is overly narrow given: the Court's stated motivation to provide more clarity to
people with HIV; its rejection
of an absolute duty to disclose; and the difficulty
of proving realistic
possibility beyond a
reasonable doubt in the face
of low viral load AND condom use.
With the specific situation that you describe there is certainly the
possibility that «As featured in» might be confused with «recommended by» in the mind
of a
reasonable person.
Neither was it persuasive to argue, as the government did, that the starting point
of exceptionality was
reasonable since only a few
persons would be affected, implying as it did the
possibility of justifying the restriction
of the applicants» Convention rights by the minimal number
of persons adversely affected.
Nor is the remote
possibility of injury enough; there must be a sufficient probability
of injury to lead a
reasonable person (in the position
of the defendant) to anticipate it... The question is whether a
reasonable 13 year old boy, in the situation that [the defendant] was in, would have anticipated that some significant personal injury would result from his actions in playing tag as he did.»
Nor is the remote
possibility of injury enough; there must be a sufficient probability
of injury to lead a
reasonable person (in the position
of the defendant) to anticipate it.»
It's something that might cross the mind
of a
reasonable and prudent
person as an outside
possibility, but it's certainly not the sort
of thing one loses sleep over on an ongoing basis.
When the court finds «some
reasonable possibility of reconciliation,» the case may be transferred to a conciliation court or family service agencies, or other
persons or agencies determined by the court to be qualified to provide conciliation services.