Substantially impaired definition

Substantially impaired means that a dwelling unit or premises has been deemed unfit for human habitation by a governmental authority;

Substantially impaired means a dwelling unit or premises that has been deemed unfit for human habitation by a governmental authority or is in a condition that renders more than half of the dwelling unit or premises unusable by the tenant or that has caused a failure of utilities to the dwelling unit or apartment for a period of more than three (3) days.

Substantially impaired means that an individual lacks the ability to make informed, rational judgments and/or to coherently communicate those judgments.

Examples of Substantially impaired in a sentence

• Interested persons were given until April 24, 2000, to comment on the draft study.

• INTOXICATED: Substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body.

• Substantially impaired performance or severe damage may occur to both the preamplifier and the power supply if operation is attempted from an AC power source for which the supply has not been properly set.

• Substantially impaired performance for medical reasons for which accommodations have not been successful.

• Substantially impaired mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.Machine Gun.

• For a digital classroom, this may include rules around muting and unmuting, using video, and using a “thumbs up” to demonstrate understanding (see “check for understanding” below).· Use video: Encourage students to enable their video camera so the class feels like a more social experience.· Use Mute: Ask all the learners to keep themselves muted, unless they are speaking.

• Substantially impaired conditions were associated with nuisance algae during 3% of the CSLAP sampling sessions, and with excessive weeds 2% of the time.

More Definitions of Substantially impaired

Substantially impaired means just that. You would have to conclude that his abnormality of mind was a real cause of the defendant’s conduct. The defendant need not prove that his condition was the sole cause of it but he must show that it was more than a merely trivial one which made no real or appreciable difference to his ability to control himself.”It is preferable, depending on the particular case, to give a simple direction such as was given in Lloyd. If it is necessary, either in the summing-up or in answer to any request for a redirection to descend into further explanation, then Jutting is an appropriate model. The jury will be faced with psychiatric evidence which may be complicated. No doubt the psychiatrists will identify the alleged abnormality of mind and the particular capacity which is said to be substantially impaired. It is necessary to fashion a direction identifying the abnormality of mindand the mental capacity which is relevant to the case, direct the jury to the relevant evidence and any particular issues that fall from the medical evidence – see RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 and R v Mogg (2000) 112 A Crim R 417 at [54]. Suggested Direction: Diminished responsibility is a partial defence to murder in that if diminished responsibility is established the accused is not guilty of murder but is guilty of manslaughter.Diminished responsibility only arises for your consideration if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of all of the four elements of murder which, as I have already directed you are that:

Substantially impaired or “Substantial Impairment”81 means a hy- pothetical status of the B Loan that Administrative Agent shall determine as follows. Administrative Agent shall hypothetically sell all Collateral (in- cluding all Substantial Impairment Prevention Collateral timely delivered to Administrative Agent) at its fair market value.82 For that purpose, Ad-

Substantially impaired means just that. You would have to conclude that his abnormality of mind was a real cause of the defendant’s conduct. The defendant need not prove that his condition was the sole cause of it but he must show that it was more than a merely trivial one which made no real or appreciable difference to his ability to control himself.”[37] Section 304A creates the relationship between the abnormality of mind and the murder because, to establish the deficiency the accused must show that the abnormality of mind affected the accused’s ability to think in relation to the killing act or omission, in the sense that in the case of each “capacity” the impairment must be shown to bear upon the accused’s ability to “understand what the person is doing” or “control the person’s actions” or to “know that the person ought not to do the act”.[38] The duty of a trial judge in summing up a case to a jury includes instructing the jury on the onus and burden of proof and “identify[ing] the issues in the case and relat[ing] the law to those issues”.24 It is for the jury to determine whether any impairment is substantial.25 What assistance is to be given to a jury in its consideration of that issue will vary with each case.[39] In my view, it was necessary in this case for the learned trial judge to direct the jury that, to show that the accused was not guilty of murder but only guilty of manslaughter, the appellant had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that: