BER_Case_76-5

Rs · Resource Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#BER_Case_76-5
Properties
Instance of
BERCasePrecedent
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#BERCasePrecedent
Confidence
0.98
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 76-5
Importance
high
Used by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to resolve the supplanting charge
Used in context
Most recently cited precedent establishing the two-part test for the supplanting rule: the complaining engineer must either have a contract for the work or have been selected for negotiation for the particular work
Version
1976
Source Evidence
Source text
As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'

Text references
As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'
TTL
@prefix case168: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> . @prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> . @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . case168:BER_Case_76-5 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "BER_Case_76-5" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ; proeth:confidence "0.98" ; proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ; proeth:discoveredincase "168" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 76-5" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "168" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ; proeth:sourcetext "As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'" ; proeth:textreferences "As most recently stated in Case 76-5, '…for the supplanting standard to apply the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work…'" ; proeth:usedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review to resolve the supplanting charge" ; proeth:usedincontext "Most recently cited precedent establishing the two-part test for the supplanting rule: the complaining engineer must either have a contract for the work or have been selected for negotiation for the particular work" ; proeth:version "1976" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 168 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:59:28.918232"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 168 Extraction" .
Metadata
Type
Individual
Last Updated
2026-05-28 16:27
Discovered in case
168
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
First case
168
Generated
2026-03-02T02:38:14.801876+00:00
Attributed to
Case 168 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:59:28.918232
Generated by
ProEthica Case 168 Extraction