Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The case was closely related to another proceeding in the High Court (Mabo v Queensland (No 2), [4] decided in 1992) which was a dispute between the Meriam people (of the Mer Islands in the Torres Strait) and the Government of Queensland, in which several Meriam people, principally Eddie Mabo, contested that they had certain native title rights over the Murray Islands.
Most of Quine's argument against analyticity in the first four sections is focused on showing that different explanations of analyticity are circular. The main purpose is to show that no satisfactory explanation of analyticity has been given. Quine begins by making a distinction between two different classes of analytic statements.
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (commonly known as the Mabo case or simply Mabo) is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia that recognised the existence of Native Title in Australia. [1] It was brought by Eddie Mabo and others against the State of Queensland , and decided on 3 June 1992.
In the IRAC method of legal analysis, the "issue" is simply a legal question that must be answered. An issue arises when the facts of a case present a legal ambiguity that must be resolved in a case, and legal researchers (whether paralegals, law students, lawyers, or judges) typically resolve the issue by consulting legal precedent (existing statutes, past cases, court rules, etc.).
The Briginshaw principle has since been enacted in Australia's uniform evidence law. For example, s140(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) sets out 'gravity of the matters alleged' as a relevant consideration for proving a case on the balance of probabilities; a subsumption of the Briginshaw principle. [2]
Among other things, this means that LA can support contradiction – proof that an argument is true and that it is false. Arguments supporting the case for and arguments supporting the case against are aggregated separately, leading to a single assessment of confidence in the case for and a single assessment of confidence in the case against.
For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be "I am a British citizen" (1). Ground (Fact, Evidence, Data) A fact one appeals to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data "I was born in Bermuda" (2). Warrant
For example, relevant evidence may be excluded if it is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or the relevance or irrelevance of evidence cannot be determined by logical analysis. There is also general agreement that assessment of relevance or irrelevance involves or requires judgements about probabilities or uncertainties.