opinion

(redirected from Brief for Petitioner)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia.

opinion

[əpin′yən]
Etymology: L, opinari, to suppose
1 (in law) a statement by the court, usually in writing, of the reasoning behind its decision or judgment in a particular case.
2 a statement prepared for a client by an attorney that represents the attorney's understanding of the law as it pertains to a legal question posed by the client.

opinion

A term of art used in clinical studies for judgement and/or the advice provided by an independent ethics committee to sponsors and regulatory bodies

opinion,

n in the law of evidence, an inference or conclusion drawn by a witness from information known to him or her or assumed.

Patient discussion about opinion

Q. Looking for anyone that would like to share information or opinions regarding Fibromyalgia? Do you believe in Fibromyalgia? What are the symptoms? Any good treatments?

A. i have a close friend that suffers from that illness. i have to say that when you look at it from the side it's hard to understand the pain and suffer that involved in this. at first i couldn't see it from her point of view,and i ashamed to say i didn't believe her...
but it took me a while to see that this is a true pain and frustrating it is. it's important to take in mind that poeple that does not suffer from Fybromyalgia have hard times understanding it.

More discussions about opinion
References in periodicals archive ?
See Brief for Petitioner Graham, supra note 43, at 6-8 (describing statutes under which Graham might have been sentenced).
11-398) (citing all three cases in support of belief that AIA is jurisdictional); see also Brief for Petitioners at 10, NFIB, 132 S.
752, 757-58 (1974), as a recent case holding the AIA jurisdictional, in the Affordable Care Act litigation, Brief for Petitioners, NFIB, 132 S.
162) Decker Brief for Petitioners supra note 7, at 32, Georgia-Pacific West Brief for Petitioners supra note 7, at 52.
See also Decker Brief for Petitioners supra note 7, at 20, (arguing that "the court committed two distinct yet intertwined legal errors: the court failed to afford EPA's interpretations of its rules the controlling weight to which they are entitled and, by replacing EPA's rules with new, court-crafted rules, ultimately exceeded the scope of its review in a citizen suit").
Reply Brief for Petitioners,- supra note 360, at * 13 ("The notion that Congress intended to refer to all these subsections of Section 507 and not refer to 507(a)(2) is implausible.
See Reply Brief for Petitioners, supra note 360, at *10-11 ("As a general principle, the bankruptcy estate and administrative expense period end at plan confirmation.

Full browser ?