能量守恒
发表于 2025-3-27 00:10:18
M. A. Colangelo,T. Macrí,V. U. Ceccherelli most notable of these American theorists were Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1935), Roscoe Pound (1870–1964), Karl N. Llewellyn (1893–1962), and Lon L. Fuller (1902–1978). Holmes was first a practicing lawyer, then for a brief period a professor of law at Harvard, then a judge of the highest cour
Inordinate
发表于 2025-3-27 03:00:24
Henk Kooi,Sierd Cloetingh,Gijs Remmeltsof this revolution were Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841 – 1935), John Dewey (1859 – 1952), Roscoe Pound (1870 – 1964) and Karl N. Llewellyn (1893 – 1962). In an earlier article, I summarized the general tenets of this highly influential body of instrumentalist thought..
aqueduct
发表于 2025-3-27 07:34:52
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3153/315271/315271_33.png
BOOST
发表于 2025-3-27 10:44:13
A. Aitsam,J. Elken,L. Talsepp,J. Laanemetsg and defending these theses, (3) differentiate in a very general way my theses from the concerns of other theorists, and (4) explain how the truth or soundness of my theses may be important. But this is only a preliminary account. A book will eventually follow..
混合
发表于 2025-3-27 16:28:10
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3153/315271/315271_35.png
战胜
发表于 2025-3-27 21:12:17
Quantification of Vulnerability,e of the basic, essential, and ubiquitous types of legal construct in all legal systems. I single out such rules because of their special importance. First, they are instruments both of problem-specific policy and values associated with the rule of law. Second, they are also used to shape and define
审问,审讯
发表于 2025-3-27 22:50:35
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3153/315271/315271_37.png
重力
发表于 2025-3-28 02:35:50
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6887-4y and legal practice intersect at many points. One branch of the subject takes the form of an inventory and analysis of the nature and limits of leading types of interpretive arguments. This is the branch we will explore now. But within that branch, we will concentrate on only one leading type of ar
abduction
发表于 2025-3-28 06:14:55
http://reply.papertrans.cn/32/3153/315271/315271_39.png
cavity
发表于 2025-3-28 12:04:43
Felicita Scapini,Gabriele Ciampifacts are in dispute is to find the truth. Some natural scientists, some social scientists, some philosophers, and many others regularly assume that truth finding is the only important function of trial court procedures and the rules of evidence. It is true that without findings of fact that general