Substantive Response Legal

I think you are right in principle, but I do not think you are quite right – just for the most part! I think the “evidence” could be substantial – microscopic (DNA?) – but substantial, because it provides the “weight” of the evidence/arguments. I like this one (from a British sales executive quoted in the FT a few days ago): “The main differences are very small.” A little awkward perhaps, but it helps to point out the difference between the two words – to say that the essential differences were very small would be contradictory. All of this convinces me that there is a useful distinction between the two words that could be usefully preserved (or perhaps created) – although I don`t expect that to be the case: name abuse for substantial seems to be everywhere. substantial_vs._name_-_Writing_for_Business Feb-05-2010 In short, substantive law says what you can and cannot do. Procedural law determines how you have to do something. For example, a state that says, although it should not steal. It would be a substantive right. I just saw an interesting use of the word “substantial” in an August 2009 article by Martin Taylor in Prospect magazine. He speaks of “the preference of the political process for small steps rather than substantive steps.” This reading made me strange (and brought me to this page). Civil law differs from criminal law in that it applies to interactions between citizens. Instead of dealing with crimes, civil law deals with tort liability or acts that are not necessarily unlawful but have proven to be harmful in some way.

For example, if you are suing a neighbour for cutting down a tree and letting it land on your house, it would be more of a civil case involving a tort than a criminal case involving crimes. When individuals spend money on legal fees to file claims, most want to know how the courts resolve those claims. They also want to know if a judge is asking for evidence. For example, a state law states that a person has 30 days to file a response to a civil complaint. It is a procedural right that prescribes the manner in which a civil action is to be conducted. The trial involves arrest and prosecution of the charges. The arrested person has the right to a court-appointed lawyer or private legal assistance. A judge determines the fixation. and, substantially, to mean important, something important but cannot be measured, for example a material truth The word substantial is often used in patent grant proceedings. “Substantive examination” of a patent application means a full and detailed examination by the examiner, as opposed to the more superficial initial examination by the searching authority. “I invested a lot of money in the stock market.” The use of the word “substantial” in the same sentence does not seem correct.

Substantive claims are when a party asks the court to order something important about the lives of the parties. For example, the application could relate to custody, child support, property issues or other substantive issues. In some cases, the examining attorney will identify a problem with a trademark application that requires detailed legal reasoning as a defense to overcome a possible refusal. These are most often obtained when the examining attorney believes that the applicant`s trademark is similar and therefore confusing with another mark already registered or pending, simply describes the goods or services sold, or is merely decorative and does not function as a mark identifying the source of the goods/services. In addition, there are other reasons why the examining lawyer may ask questions that require a written answer or defence before the examining lawyer can proceed with the application. These are transmitted to the applicant as part of a substantive decision. These measures are important because they require more than just a one- or two-line response. Instead, they need comprehensive and persuasive legal reasoning to overcome the examiner`s reasons for a possible trademark rejection.

“There is broad agreement between the company and the unions” could perhaps go both ways, but I could probably add: “but the fundamental issue of redundancies still needs to be clarified”. What a fascinating and useful critical discussion! I believe that the closer [phonetic and semantic] structural affinity between the words “substantial” and “substantial” is largely responsible for the confusion, especially given the way they are unknowingly exchanged but increasingly in everyday language, leading to the fusion of the fine distinction between them in the social process [the two words are probably derived from the root word substance (?)]. I have experienced this in a number of other languages around the world. However, my opinion on this subject would be that the word “substantial” is temporally [qualitative, intense] compact space marked and that the term “substantially” spatially [quantitatively, extensively] constitutes great time, while the former is characterized by a sense of “distinction” [of the compactness of space], the latter by a degree of “conviviality” [the immensity of time]. It boils down to variation and accentuation, from temporality and quality to spatiality and quantity and vice versa, i.e. “substantial” to “substantial” and vice versa. Therein lies the fine distinction between them, either in their separate or combined use. Two uses that would not have led to an “awkward” answer on my part would be www.netspeak.org/#query=substantial+%253Fwww.netspeak.org/#query=substantive+%253F Substantive debates about candidate semantics were important in the media during the last election. In this election, however, coverage was more moderate. When reading a provision drafted by the parties, which was submitted to the Hearing Officer for approval as to form and content, the following text was added to the Hearing Officer`s handwriting directly above his signature: `It should be noted that pages 7 and 8 are empty.` It just didn`t seem “right” to me and I thought it was added not only to show that the author was wide awake and on guard, but that his use of “substantial” instead of “substantial” was intended to show that the author was somehow “really smart.” I mean, why use “substantial” when there were other adjectives commonly used to express the fact that the pages referenced in the document as submitted to the Hearing Officer were “essentially” blank.

About the author

John