A hypothetical: Quinlan under ohio law
| Abstract | It is the purpose of this comment to explore a hypothetical situation, to take the facts of the Quinlan case as revealed in the New Jersey Superior Court and the New Jersey Supreme Court opinions and interpret them under applicable Ohio law. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesSusanne Bobzien (1997). The Stoics on Hypotheses and Hypothetical Arguments. Phronesis 42 (3):299-312.
J. T. Stevenson (1970). The Ethical Theory of Clarence Irving Lewis. By J. Roger Saydah. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press; Toronto: Copp Clark. 1969. Pp. X, 171. $8.25. [REVIEW] Dialogue 9 (03):462-465.
Norman L. Cantor (2001). Twenty-Five Years After Quinlan: A Review of the Jurisprudence of Death and Dying. [REVIEW] Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 29 (2):182-196.
Henry Prakken (2010). Using Argument Schemes for Hypothetical Reasoning in Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 18 (2):153-174.
Kevin D. Ashley (2009). Teaching a Process Model of Legal Argument with Hypotheticals. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (4):321-370.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
