Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America and the Executive Office of the President : Decided: Pending (filed June 22, 2017) Defendants: Donald Trump in his capacity as President Executive Office of the President
An appeal to the law (argumentum ad legem in Latin) is an informal fallacy in which someone tries to encourage or defend an action based on its legality, or condemn it as morally reprehensible, purely because it is illegal. [1]
Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (1957), was a case of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.The plaintiffs, [2] [3] watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named ...
John Moore first visited UCLA Medical Center on October 5, 1976, after he was diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia.Physician and cancer researcher David Golde took samples of Moore's blood, bone marrow, and other bodily fluids to confirm the diagnosis and recommended a splenectomy because of the potentially fatal amount of swelling in Moore's spleen. [3]
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001), was an Internet domain trademark infringement decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The ruling became an early precedent on the nature of domain names as both trademarked intellectual property and free speech.
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."
Much of the literature on the ethics of procreation deals with the Asymmetry. [6] A number of authors have defended the Asymmetry, [7] and a number of authors have argued against it. [8] Many who defend the asymmetry appeal to its intuitiveness. [9] However, more elaborated defences of the asymmetry have been yielded.