Order:
Disambiguations
Alex Stein [7]Alexandra Stein [1]
See also
  1.  11
    Foundations of Evidence Law.Alex Stein - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
    This is the first book to systematically examine the underlying theory of evidence in Anglo-American legal systems. Stein develops a detailed and innovative theory which sets aside the traditional vision of evidence law as facilitating the discovery of the truth. Combining probability theory, epistemology, economic analysis, and moral philosophy, he argues instead that the fundamental purpose of evidence law is to apportion the risk of error in conditions of uncertainty.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  2.  1
    Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law.Christian Dahlman, Alex Stein & Giovanni Tuzet (eds.) - 2021 - New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    "Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law presents a cross-disciplinary overview of the core issues in the theory and methodology of adjudicative evidence and factfinding, assembling the major philosophical and interdisciplinary insights that define evidence theory, as related to law, in a single book. The volume presents contemporary debates on truth, knowledge, rational beliefs, proof, argumentation, explanation, coherence, probability, economics, psychology, bias, gender, and race. It covers different theoretical approaches to legal evidence, including the Bayesian approach, scenario theory, and inference to the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  2
    Tort Liability Under Uncertainty.Ariel Porat & Alex Stein - 2001 - Oxford University Press UK.
    The book provides a comprehensive and principled account of the uncertainty problem that arises in tort litigation. It presents and critically examines the existing doctrinal solutions of the problem, as evolved in England, the United States, Canada, and Israel, and also offers a number of original solutions, such as imposition of collective liability and liability for evidential damage. Among the issues dealt with by the book are rapidly developing areas of tort law, such as mass torts, liability for imposing risk (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Second-Personal Evidence.Alex Stein - 2021 - In Christian Dahlman, Alex Stein & Giovanni Tuzet (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  4
    Evidence and Proof.William Twining & Alex Stein (eds.) - 1992 - New York University Press.
    This volume brings together leading theoretical writings on legal fact-finding which are dispersed and not readily accessible.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  29
    On the Epistemic Authority of Courts.Alex Stein - 2008 - Episteme 5 (3):pp. 402-410.
    This paper uses Carl Ginet's concept of “disinterested justification” to identify the boundaries of the epistemic authority of courts. It claims that courts exercise this authority only in the “interest-free” zone, in which their determinations of disputed facts’ probabilities can be made and justified on epistemic grounds alone. This is not the case with the “interest-laden” domain, where courts allocate risks of error under conditions of uncertainty. This domain is controlled by the risk-allocating evidentiary rules: burdens of proof, corroboration, hearsay, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  14
    Indeterminate Causation and Apportionment of Damages: An Essay on Holtby, Allen, and Fairchild.Ariel Porat & Alex Stein - 2003 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23 (4):667-702.
    Holtby, Allen and Fairchild are both recent and revolutionary decisions that address an important aspect of the indeterminate causation problem that frequently arises in tort litigation. In Holtby and Allen, the Court of Appeal departed from the traditional binary approach, under which a tort claimant either recovers compensation for his or her entire injury or is altogether denied recovery—depending on whether his or her case against the defendant is more probable than not. Holtby and Allen substituted this approach by the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark