A reasonable summary of the case can be found here.
Not exact matches
It is not the
case that things are either terrifying or benign or in between, and in fact one
of the problems with climate change is that none
of these positions is a
reasonable summary.
In
summary, a strong
case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025
of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although
reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any
reasonable interpretation
of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required
of it as a mater
of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation
of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.
I'm questioning whether or not it's
reasonable that the empirical record described in the Chapter 5 Executive
Summary of the AR4 could lead to the worst
case projected outcome in table 10.7.
However, when there is no
reasonable prospect that any such evidence could allow the applicant to prove his or her
case on a balance
of probabilities, the application must be dismissed following the
summary hearing.
It should, however, be borne in mind that
summary dismissal under DISP 3.3 was not limited to
cases which the ombudsman considered to be frivolous or vexatious or without a
reasonable prospect
of success.
A party now faced with the prospect
of having to arbitrate a dispute may now have a realistic opportunity to avoid that process, if so desired, if there is any
reasonable prospect
of persuading the Court that the
case may be more efficiently resolved by means
of a
summary judgment motion than an arbitration.
Because our existing
case law holds that a property owner does not violate the duty
of reasonable care by failing to remove natural accumulations
of snow and ice, see Sullivan v. Brookline, 416 Mass. 825, 827 (1994), the judge concluded that, as a matter
of law, the plaintiff could not prevail on his claims
of negligence; therefore, the judge allowed the defendants» motions for
summary judgment.
I was able to obtain
summary judgment based upon the statute
of limitations, in which the court found that the doctors» advice to the plaintiff that «nothing was wrong with her», was not sufficient to delay the discovery
of her injuries so as to avoid the bar
of the statute
of limitations; and Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village, the leading
case in California which held that provisions in the CC&R s are presumed to be
reasonable and enforceable.
Instead, to withstand
summary judgment on the issue
of punitive damages recovery in a car accident
case, a plaintiff must point to sufficient evidence from which a
reasonable jury could conclude «that the collision result «from a pattern or policy
of dangerous driving, such as driving while intoxicated or speeding excessively.