This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.155.244.245(talk) at 23:43, 26 July 2019(insert Section- Remove Primary Sources Tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:43, 26 July 2019 by 24.155.244.245(talk)(insert Section- Remove Primary Sources Tag)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article was nominated for deletion on September 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
VfD Sept 2007
Questions on notability were raised via [1]. Please review that if you have notability questions. Yes, it appears adverse inference has played a definitive role in major, recent court actions. It is an "extreme sanction" which "often terminates the litigation". NuclearWinner 17:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Primary Sources tag
In view of WP:COMMON , I have removed the primary sources tag upon the reasoning that using a court's own opinion is the best approach in view of common sense. Also, the court's opinions are not "original research" but rather are merely direct quotes which are indisputable and are quite definitive and binding precedent upon the subject matter. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
