Sentences with phrase «require opinion evidence»
Loss of a chance cases require opinion evidence on the stage of the cancer at the time the diagnosis should have been made.
https://www.massachusettsinjurylawyerblog.com/ Not exact matches
He said: «There is no evidence supporting it... And I have a very good opinion of Brian... He was very supportive in creating the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau], very helpful... The argument that good governance requires having a separation I just don't understand.»
In the face of these controversies, changing our practice of laboratory test monitoring relies not only on evidence provided by key studies such as this one but may additionally require discussion within the dermatology community and possibly even endorsement or guidelines issued from key opinion leaders to gain wide acceptance,» write Eleni Linos, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.PH., of the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors in a related editorial.
Joiner has likely made this task more difficult by instructing trial judges that neither Daubert nor the Federal Rules of Evidence «requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of theEvidence «requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of theevidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.
Behind closed doors, insiders may or may not have exchanged their opinions on value - added evaluations, but since the evidence required for a meaningful debate over the real world effects of those evaluations did not exist, I wonder if the lack of research on the policy implications of value - added was considered.
There's a lot of evidence that the intertwined energy and climate challenges will require a leader to step out ahead of public opinion, a rare thing in politics.
Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
Clearly, the experimental design could have been better, ain't that always the case, you are of the opinion that the flaws, and non-zero independence make the study unpublishable, the journal did not and we'll see if the board finds the «forum» evidence requires a retraction....
To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).
However, if they demonstrate an repeated direct correlation between precipitation and wind speed, will this be enough in itself to validate your hypothesis, or would additional empirical evidence be required in your opinion?
No amount of evidence will change their opinion if they require an experiment that is impossible to construct.»]
See these articles (pdf): (1) «Admissibility of Electronic Records Requires Proof of Records Management System Integrity»; (2) «The Sedona Canada Principles are Very Inadequate on Records Management and for Electronic Discovery»; (3) «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems»; (4) «Electronic Records as Evidence»; and, (5) «Solving the High Cost of the «Review» Stage of Electronic Discovery».
Earlier this month, one state's appellate court issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case that required the court to determine whether the single doctor named as a defendant should be able to introduce evidence that there had originally been several other doctors named as defendants, but they had all settled with the plaintiff before the case reached trial.
George et al. v. Newfoundland and Labrador 2013 NLTD (G) 170 Evidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defEvidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defevidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defevidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defevidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defendant).
«Technologically competent» also requires knowledge of the electronic technology that now produces most of the evidence, and very frequently used types of evidence; for example, these kinds of evidence: (1) records are now the most frequently used kind of evidence but most often come from very complex electronic records management systems; (2) mobile phone tracking evidence because we all carry mobile phones; (3) breathalyzer device readings because they are the basis of more than 95 % of impaired driving cases; and, (4) expert opinion evidence that depends upon data produced by electronic systems and devices.
Last month, an appellate court in Maryland issued a written opinion in a medical malpractice case that required the court to determine if evidence of the alleged negligence of several non-parties should have been admitted at trial.
Earlier last month, the Connecticut Court of Appeals issued a written opinion in a Connecticut car accident case requiring the court to discuss the distinction between a judge's decision whether to admit certain evidence and the weight that evidence is afforded by the fact - finder once admitted.
The results from such a program are not «opinion evidence», and they do not require introduction by an expert: R v George (1993), 146 AR 107 at para 34, 14 Alta LR (3d) 106 (PC)(at para 23).
Despite the semantic somersaults with which the Family Procedure Rules Committee and Sir James Munby P (with the semantic exercise now spread to Parliament: Children and Families Act 2014, s 13 (6)-RRB- have been engaged, perhaps — in truth, or in linguistic reality — there is no real difference between what opinion evidence is reasonably required and what is «necessary» to resolve a case.
As Tony Mauro explains at Legal Times, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion did not repeal the knock - and - announce rule, but «said the traditional remedy for police violation of the rule — namely, barring the use at trial of the evidence found — is no longer required.»
The three analogies: (1) whereas a pre-electronic paper record can be symbolized by a piece of paper in a file drawer, an electronic record is like a drop of water in a pool of water, i.e., it is completely dependent upon its ERMS for its existence, accessibility, and «integrity» (as that word is used in the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inEvidence Acts; e.g. s. 31.2 (1)(a) CEA); (2) if expert opinion evidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence were rendered admissible in the way that electronic records are, there would be no evidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and inevidence presented, nor cross-examination allowed, as to the qualifications of the expert witnesses, i.e., the «qualifications» of an electronic record being the state of records management of the ERMS in which it is stored; (3) going from a horse - powered transportation system to a motor vehicle - based transportation system has required a vast amount of new laws, regulations, and enforcement personnel, including police officers, judges, and lawyers, i.e., stepping up to a new technology requires that it be controlled by new laws and regulations, otherwise it will cause injury, damage, and injustice.
Re: lawyers practising in association with non-lawyers: - Absolutely necessary because: (1) technology will be the basis of almost all laws, therefore we will have to practice with other experts in that technology; (2) records management law will be a major area of practice because, records are the most frequently used form of evidence and e-records depend for everything on their e-records management systems (ERMSs), and they must be compliant with the National Standards of Canada for e-records management, which standards require legal opinions, and every significant change to an ERMS requires a legal opinion re ability to produce records able to satisfy laws as to e-discovery, admissibility of evidence, privacy & access to information, electronic commerce, tax laws, and compliance with National Standards of Canada for e-records management; (3) all new technologies require a legal framework, which means more work for lawyers; and, (4) otherwise, other professions and service providers who now provide «legal information,» will begin to provide «legal advice» and other services that only lawyers should be providing.
Earlier this month, the state's high court issued a written opinion in a Texas workplace injury case requiring the court to determine whether the trial court was acting within its discretion when it precluded video evidence without actually viewing the video.
In partially granting the defendant's motion to bar the testimony, the court provides a nice gloss on the required showings for getting expert opinions into evidence in Federal courts.
Last month, an appellate court in Michigan issued an opinion in a premises liability case, finding that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment to the defendant, due to the plaintiff's failure to present evidence of a required element of her claim.
«There is no question that the Court has required either a concern for officer safety or a concern over the preservation of evidence to support the constitutionality of a warrantless search of the area where the defendant was arrested or a search of items near the defendant,» Chief justice Lori Gildea wrote in today's opinion (pdf).
We can assist your local counsel in your local litigation with matters including, valid service on the Defendant located in Ontario, examination and other court proceedings for the collection of evidence in Ontario (in - coming letters of request or letters rogatory), opinions on the laws of Ontario and Canada, as may be required, and the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Ontario.
The appellants argue such opinion evidence went beyond the area in which Green was qualified to testify and, as well, amounted to impermissible opinions on the ultimate issue the jury was required to decide.
In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, the United States Supreme Court said that there is nothing in Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence that requires a trial court «to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of theEvidence that requires a trial court «to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of theevidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.
See; (1) «Admissibility of Electronic Records Requires Proof of Records Management System Integrity»; (2) «Electronic Records as Evidence»; (3) «The Admissibility of Electronic Business Records,» (2010), 8 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 105; and, (4) «A Legal Opinion is Necessary for Electronic Records Management Systems.»
In other cases, it will be possible to know material facts without a medical opinion, and the medical opinion itself will simply be required as evidence in the litigation.
The Court further explained that although «most lay person have opinions and theories of their own as to how the human body functions, our courts have decided that, in order to recover compensation, a standard of expert evidence on the subject is required where the injury is not apparent to the layman.»
REALTORS would require evidence that proves your opinions were true before those opinions could appear on their websites or printed material.