Assertion: evidence | /r/HasProperty | relevant
Facets:
value: truly
type: DEGREE
value: for other reasons
type: CAUSE
value: to the issues at hand
type: OTHER
value: in both cases
type: OTHER
value: if
type: DEGREE
value: on an explanatory conception of relevance
type: OTHER
value: in law
type: LOCATION
value: on other grounds
type: OTHER
value: to the hypothesis
type: OTHER
value: logically
type: DEGREE
value: on the prevailing understanding
type: OTHER
Source sentences:
text: The problem, of course, is one of the evidence being relevant to the hypothesis, a problem that will surface again with other accounts of evidence, as we shall see below (§§2ci, 3c).
text: Evidence is considered relevant so long as the likelihood ratio is other than 1:1 (Lempert 1977).
text: Evidence must be relevant –
text: According to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), evidence is relevant if it has the "tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
text: The second definition is contained in the United States’ Federal Rule of Evidence 401 which (in its restyled version) states that evidence is relevant if “it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” (emphasis added).
text: The conventional view is that relevance in law is a binary concept: evidence is either relevant or it is not.
text: On an explanatory conception of relevance, evidence is relevant if it is explained by or provides a reason for believing the particular explanation of the material events offered by the side adducing the evidence, and it remains relevant even where, as in our example, the evidence also supports or forms part of the explanation offered by the opponent (Pardo and Allen 2008: 241–2; Pardo 2013: 600).
text: Evidence is relevant if the likelihood ratio is other than 1:1.
text: But evidence may also be relevant on other grounds, such as when it provides for a richer narrative or helps the court in understanding other evidence.
text: Returning to Federal Rule of Evidence 401, it states generally that evidence is relevant if “
text: The first is that for evidence to be relevant in law, “a generally higher degree of probative value” is required “than would be asked in ordinary reasoning”;
text: If the evidence is logically relevant, it will be received by the court unless the law—in the form of an exclusionary or admissibility rule—requires its exclusion.
text: It was noted earlier that evidence is either relevant or not, and, on the prevailing understanding, it is relevant so long as the likelihood ratio deviates from 1:1.
text: It was noted earlier that evidence is either relevant or not, and, on the prevailing understanding, it is relevant so long as the likelihood ratio deviates from 1:1.
text: In both cases, the evidence is relevant; but the probative value is greater in the latter than in the former scenario.
text: Even when evidence is available from high-quality RCTs, evidence from other study types may still be relevant.
text: Before accepting digital evidence a court will determine if the evidence is relevant, whether it is authentic, if it is hearsay and whether a copy is acceptable or the original is required.
text: Is the evidence relevant?
text: Evidence is relevant when it has a definite relationship to the claim.
text: In testing whether evidence is relevant, dont jump to conclusions.
text: A good technique is to start by assuming the evidence is relevant and then try to figure out how.
text: The simplest way to do it is, if you think the evidence is relevant, to explain how it relates to the claim.
text: If any evidence, whether testimonial or physical, is material, relevant, and competent.
text: Evidence is relevant if:
text: In order to ensure that each party to a court case is given a fair trial, a judge strives to make certain that any evidence presented in a court of law or administrative proceeding is reliable, material, and relevant to the issues at hand.
text: Sometimes a judge will exclude evidence that is relevant for other reasons.
text: This is a much broader standard than relevance, because it contemplates the exploration of evidence which might be relevant, rather than evidence which is truly relevant.
text: So long as the likelihood ratio is other than 1:1, the evidence is considered relevant.
text: Evidence is considered relevant if it tends to increase or decrease the probability of what it is introduced to disprove or prove.
text: In order for evidence to be considered relevant, it must prove or disprove a point that is being made by either party.