Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 is an English decision on the conflict of laws in tort. The Court developed a two limbed test for determining whether a tort occurring outside of the court's jurisdiction can be actionable. [1] In time this came to be referred to as the "dual-actionability test" (or "double actionability test").
Here, it is assumed that calculating arguments takes time, and at any given time, based on a subset of the potentially constructible arguments, a conclusion is defeasibly justified. Isaac Levi has protested against this kind of defeasibility, but it is well-suited to the heuristic projects of, for example, Herbert A. Simon .
John Stuart Mill (1859) A Few Words on Non-Intervention at the Online Library of Liberty "A Few Words on Non-Intervention Archived 22 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine" from Foreign Policy Perspectives No. 8 ISSN 0267-6761 ISBN 0-948317-96-5 (An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance, 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London SW1P 4NN.)
The opposite, slothful induction, is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence" when it is very likely not. The overwhelming exception is related to the hasty generalization but works from the other end. It is a generalization that is accurate, but tags on a qualification ...
The core idea behind the epistemic approach is that arguments play an epistemic role: they aim to expand our knowledge by providing a bridge from already justified beliefs to not yet justified beliefs. [9] [2] Fallacies are arguments that fall short of this goal by breaking a rule of epistemic justification. [3]
There have been a number of responses to the two-horned dilemma. One response has been to argue that a deterministic connection does not actually beg the question. Fischer has argued for this response by arguing that the Frankfurt-style case cannot stand alone, but must be taken in conjunction with other arguments. [10]
Necessity would not usually be allowed as a defence to murder, but Brooke LJ. distinguished Dudley & Stephens on the basis that the doctors were not selecting the victim unlike the cabin boy in Dudley. The decision is restricted to cases of medical necessity and a conflict of duty owed both by doctors to different patients and by parents to ...
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich 459; 170 NW 668 (1919), [1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.