Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence

Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198755463.003.0341 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Hans-Jürgen Ahrens

Keyword(s):

Rule 170 UPCARoP contains an indicative list of admissible means of evidence. It is much more extensive than the ZPO, which provides for five means of evidence under the law governing admissible evidence (Strengbeweisrecht). Unlike under the ZPO, the list has no significance for the fact that the rules on obtaining evidence are listed separately.

Download Full-text

Do not be concerned by its appearance of complexity. It is a clear, manageable system of notation. The best understanding of this method can be obtained from briefly discussing it from three perspectives: 1 The original Wigmore Chart Method dating from 1913. 2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method, from the mid-1980s. 3 Use of the modified method in this book as an aid for understanding argument construction. This will give a firm understanding of the discussions above through a practical demonstration. This discussion will then be followed by a practical demonstration of the modified Chart Method (changed slightly for our use) looking at the fictional criminal case of R v Mary. This is a demonstration devised to continue the development of argumentative skills already discussed in this chapter. A second case, R v Jack, is provided at the end of the chapter to allow students to try out their developing skills by analysing and charting a new case and building an argument. 7.10.1 The original Wigmore Chart Method John Wigmore wanted to restore an imbalance in the approach to evidence to be used in the trial. He first unveiled his views in an article published in the Illinois Law Review in 1913. He was concerned with issues surrounding the law of evidence. The law of evidence, as it is normally considered in university courses and in practice, is particularly concerned with the what type of evidence is admissible in court to prove the case of the parties. It is also concerned with the procedures that need to be followed to ensure that allowable evidence is not rendered inadmissible due to procedural and avoidable mistakes by those dealing with it before it reaches the court room. (This covers the field of forensic science as well as witness testimony.) Wigmore, however, believed that while the admissibility of evidence and the following of procedures are important aspects of the law relating to evidence, there was another more important area that had been completely ignored. This was the aspect of proof itself. What is the effect of the admissible evidence? How does it build to a finding of case proved for or against one party? Can it be said that there is a science of proof? Here of course issues relating to evidence and the construction of argument begin to merge. Wigmore sees proof in terms of the proving of points in argument persuading judges and juries of the outcome of a case. He argued:

Legal Method and Reasoning ◽

10.4324/9781843145103-185 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 240-240

Keyword(s):

Forensic Science ◽

Criminal Case ◽

Witness Testimony ◽

Modified Method ◽

University Courses ◽

The Law ◽

Law Of Evidence ◽

Admissible Evidence ◽

Practical Demonstration

Download Full-text

Ethical Challenges: Less About Moral Wrongdoing and More About Communication Breakdown

Perspectives on Gerontology ◽

10.1044/gero20.3.72 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 72-84 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Paula Leslie ◽

Mary Casper

Keyword(s):

Ethical Challenges ◽

Speech Language Pathology ◽

Thickened Liquids ◽

Communication Breakdown ◽

Professional Duty ◽

Language Pathology ◽

The Law ◽

Personal Case

“My patient refuses thickened liquids, should I discharge them from my caseload?” A version of this question appears at least weekly on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Community pages. People talk of respecting the patient's right to be non-compliant with speech-language pathology recommendations. We challenge use of the word “respect” and calling a patient “non-compliant” in the same sentence: does use of the latter term preclude the former? In this article we will share our reflections on why we are interested in these so called “ethical challenges” from a personal case level to what our professional duty requires of us. Our proposal is that the problems that we encounter are less to do with ethical or moral puzzles and usually due to inadequate communication. We will outline resources that clinicians may use to support their work from what seems to be a straightforward case to those that are mired in complexity. And we will tackle fears and facts regarding litigation and the law.

Download Full-text