1,723,153 research outputs found
Elliott, M D, 3794610
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/383777Surname: ELLIOTT. Given Name(s) or Initials: M D. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: 3794610. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: SEA-4419.227811
Item: [2016.0049.16070] "Elliott, M D, 3794610
Elliott M. Estes Honorary Degree Citation
No full text1 p.President of the General Motors Corporation Elliott M. Estes received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree at Commencement in 1975. This is the text of the degree citation
In Loving Memory of Elliott M. Friday
No full textFuneral program for Elliott M. Friday. The funeral was held June 30, 2004 at St. Paul United Methodist Church, officiated by Reverend Terrence K. Hayes. Funeral arrangements were made through Sutton-Sutton Mortuary, Inc. and he was buried in Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery near San Antonio, Texas
Funeral Service for Miss Elliott M. Green
No full textFuneral program for Miss Elliott M. Green. The funeral was held August 28, 1982 at St. Paul United Methodist Church, officiated by P. L. Woods. The funeral arrangements were made through Lewis Funeral Home and he was buried in Eastview Cemetery in San Antonio, Texas
Statement regarding the estate of Robert Millican from Old 300 colonist Elliott Millican
No full textMILLICAN, ELLIOTT M. (1808 - 1860). Document signed (Washington County),
c. 1837. Statement regarding the estate of Robert Millican. Millican settled in Texas in 1821. 2pp
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Introduction to: 'The Scope and Intensity of Substantive Review: Traversing Taggart's Rainbow'
No full textThis book is concerned with pursuing two separate but related central themes that we see in Professor Mike Taggart’s scholarship on substantive grounds of judicial review. The first theme is addressed in part A of the book. It concerns the extent to which review of the merits, traditionally limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness, should be expanded into more intensive reasonableness review, or new substantive grounds of review, or both. In Taggart’s final article on substantive review, entitled ‘Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury’, the headline point was his surprising and controversial conversion to the ‘bifurcation’ of judicial review into ‘rights cases’ and ‘public wrongs’ cases. However, the article was by no means confined to that point. It was also Taggart’s final contribution on a much wider range of issues concerning substantive grounds of review. A desire to engage with and build on Taggart’s work on this wider range of issues forms the backdrop to and impetus for this collection. The aim, however, is not to revisit already well-trodden ground, but to provide an opportunity for scholars from across the common law world to take forward aspects of the debate concerning substantive judicial review. The second theme is addressed in part B. It concerns the extent to which deference is appropriate on questions of law – a question which Taggart raised most prominently in his essay on ‘The Contribution of Lord Cooke to Scope of Review Doctrine in Administrative Law'. Both themes are concerned with substantive review, but in two different senses of that phrase. The first, in part A, is the narrower sense in which the phrase is most commonly used in the UK, Australia and New Zealand –– relating to judicial examination of the substantive merits of a decision. The second sense in which substantive review is considered in part B is the broader sense in which the phrase is commonly used in Canada –– embracing questions of legality as well as merits questions. The question in relation to this broader sense of substantive review is the opposite of that in part A: not whether such review should be expanded, but whether its intensity should be reduced in some contexts by introducing deference
- …
