Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Legal syllogism is a legal concept concerning the law and its application, specifically a form of argument based on deductive reasoning and seeking to establish whether a specified act is lawful. [1] A syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that hinges on a question, a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
where is a metalogical symbol meaning that is a syntactic consequence of , in the one case, in the other, in some logical system; or as a rule of inference : P ∨ P ∴ P {\displaystyle {\frac {P\lor P}{\therefore P}}}
The name "disjunctive syllogism" derives from its being a syllogism, a three-step argument, and the use of a logical disjunction (any "or" statement.) For example, "P or Q" is a disjunction, where P and Q are called the statement's disjuncts. The rule makes it possible to eliminate a disjunction from a logical proof. It is the rule that
In propositional logic, disjunction elimination [1] [2] (sometimes named proof by cases, case analysis, or or elimination) is the valid argument form and rule of inference that allows one to eliminate a disjunctive statement from a logical proof.
In 2007, the United States Supreme Court overruled Conley, creating a new, stricter standard of a pleading's required specificity.Under the standard the Court set forth in Conley, a complaint need only state facts which make it "conceivable" that it could prove its legal claims—that is, that a court could only dismiss a claim if it appeared, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff would be able ...
The two cases are Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and "Twiqbal" is a portmanteau of Twombly and Iqbal . Because the two cases together have wrought a significant change in American civil procedure , the cases together, and the principle for which the cases stand, have both become ...
In regards to contract law, arguing in the alternative is done where a dispute arises over the terms of a contract. In a particular case it may be best for the plaintiff to allege that a statement made was to become a term of the contract. However the circumstances of the case may be such that the plaintiff cannot be certain that the court will ...
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure.Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.