Want this question answered?
Yes, judges rule on an impartial basis. If you suspect that the judge may be biased against you you can submit a motion for a new judge, or a change of venue.
inductive reasoning is self propagation and self establishedinductive reasoning starts with empirical observations of specific phenomena, then establishes a general rule to fit the observed facts.deductive reasoning starts with a general rule, then applies that rule to a specific instance.
There is no rote response. The judge may rule using whatever language, legal reasoning, or cites that they choose.
if your case is directly related to another case then a "case citing" is extremely important, especially if it was the same judge, a judge will not rule against himself so if he has ruled one way before he'll rule the same this time.
An adversary is just a lawsuit. If you don't want the judge to rule against you you need to file an answer.
Political philosophers have determined that reasoning or rationalism is one reason people accept certain forms of rules and not others. People need to use their logic to judge if a rule is rational.
In 2000, in an antitrust lawsuit brought against Microsoft, a U.S. federal court judge ruled against the company.
It is evidence that has been ruled "INADMISSABLE" by the trial judge. One is tempted to answer this question with "hearsay" evidence. HOWEVER - that would be wrong. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that the only way the admissability of hearsay can be determined is by submitting it to the trial judge and having the judge rule on it. It is entirely possible that, due to the legal cirecumstances of the case, hearsay evidence could be included. However, if the judge rules against it, it becomes "inadmissable." THUS - information that cannot be used against the accused is called "inadmissable evidence."
No
No, inductive reasoning involves reaching a general conclusion based on specific observations or evidence. It moves from specific instances to a general principle, unlike deductive reasoning which applies a general rule to specific situations.
A.deductive reasoning
Yes. The judge may speak with the child but is under no obligation to rule according to the child's preferences.Yes. The judge may speak with the child but is under no obligation to rule according to the child's preferences.Yes. The judge may speak with the child but is under no obligation to rule according to the child's preferences.Yes. The judge may speak with the child but is under no obligation to rule according to the child's preferences.