Sentences with phrase «what standard of proof»

What standard of proof must the SDT apply to allegations of solicitors» misconduct, ask Tim Kerr QC & Charles Banner

What standard of proof should be required before enacting policies which will inevitably lead to deprivations of life, liberty and property of millions, if not billions of people?

Such rules of civil practice include guidelines as to the type of information that is acceptable by a jury or judge, the method of presentation of the information, and by what standards of proof a judgment will be made based on the information.

Not exact matches

What is most concerning is that there is no standard of proof that the government must provide in order to gain access to the customers» personal information in the database.

What they don't know is, the beauty of believing in god is their is no proof of god, therefore everyone has a picture of someone of a higher standard then they can personally attain, but need to strive for it.

There is or is not proof for the existence of God depending upon what epistemelogical standard you are using.

The burden of proof that the Christian religion (which fails to pass it own standard of what a religion is — James 1:26 - 27) is somehow superior than any other religion is on you, not me.

Exactly what is the standard of proof that you require such that you'd be willing to admit that Trump is a white supremacist?

As much as I dislike Abramovich he is the living proof that an owner sets the standards at a club — imagine what would happen to one of his manager's if they came 4th in the Premiership????

Meeting the standard of «proof of collusion» isn't a matter of meeting a technical definition or threshold — it is a matter of persuading enough people that what we're seeing is collusion.

And what would you suggest as the standard of proof that it IS the «driving force»?

Until there are professional education standards for what constitutes «proof» of educational effectiveness, we need to increase our own critical consumer skills.

... a «preponderance of the evidence»... merely requires that it is «more likely than not» that someone is responsible for what they are accused of... it is our judiciary's lowest standard of proof... 50.01 % certain that the accused person is at fault....

We need more stats, more facts, more objective proof of the efficacy of standard processes, not only to convince disgruntled Writer Beware readers that they should regruntle themselves, but also to confirm that what are subjectively assumed to be best practices based on experience and professional culture really hold up to objective scrutiny.

If we get some evidence, we can then move on to discussing what kind of standard of proof we're looking for... but that's then, and this is now.

Go read AR4 Chapter 6, which I linked and quoted, for the answers, as it's just too much detail to transcribe the entire contents of everything commented on to satisfy irrational standards of what you consider valid proof.

Again, imagine what that appealing but ludicrous standard — absolute scientific proof of safety — would do if applied against most of how we live our modern lives.

AND the appeals court making the claim that the defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he / she was damaged then «changing» that level of proof to what appears to be a higher standard by saying, «On review, we will not reverse the judgment unless the evidence as a whole unerringly and unmistakably leads to a conclusion opposite that reached by the post-conviction court.»

What I find much more interesting is standard of proof.

Another reason that victims of alcohol or drug related accidents should seek competent legal counsel and file a civil action against the defendant instead of hoping for criminal restitution is that the standard of proof required to win an Indiana personal injury lawsuit is less than what a prosecutor must prove to convict a defendant on criminal charges.

A layperson's question: What is the standard of proof the judge used in his finding of aggravating factors?

While accidents do happen in medicine, and not all will result in liability, recovery for medical malpractice requires proof that the care provided fell below the standard of the what the ordinary treating physician would have done.

They must (as with all criminal cases) prove you did what you are accused of beyond a reasonable doubt — the highest standard of proof in the U.S.

Four decades later, the sometimes acerbic Meichenbaum remains an outspoken critic of what he considers unproven therapeutic practices and fads, upholding standards of empirical proof for clinical methods within the field.