Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Present Case From BER 65-9 and 79-2

@prefix case94: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#> . @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#> . case94:Comparative_Case_Precedent_Distinguishing_Present_Case_From_BER_65-9_and_79-2 a proeth:ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Present Case From BER 65-9 and 79-2" ; proeth:appliedto "BER Case No. 65-9 highway route controversy", "BER Case No. 79-2 landfill design controversy", "Present case waterfront development disclosure question" ; proeth:balancingwith "Honest Disagreement Among Qualified Engineers Permissibility Principle", "Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ; proeth:concreteexpression "The Board distinguished the present case from BER 65-9 and BER 79-2 — which involved differences between multiple engineers over the same facts — from the present case, which involved the obligation of a single engineer to disclose information, while still finding both prior cases instructive for the present analysis." ; proeth:confidence "0.89" ; proeth:discoveredincase "94" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T19:01:33.144715+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:interpretation "The Board's ethical reasoning required careful identification of the material factual difference between the prior cases (inter-engineer disagreement) and the present case (single engineer's disclosure obligation), while recognizing that the prior cases remained instructive on the broader question of how environmental and public policy considerations are evaluated." ; proeth:invokedby "City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority" ; proeth:principleclass "Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing Obligation" ; proeth:sourcetext "While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution." ; proeth:tensionresolution "The Board resolved the tension by using the prior cases for their general principle (engineers can reach different conclusions on the same facts) while distinguishing the specific obligation at issue (a single engineer's disclosure duty vs. inter-engineer disagreement)." ; proeth:textreferences "Although the facts in Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 are different than those in the present case, the Board believes the discussion in both cases are instructive in its review of the facts here.", "While the previous cases involved the differences between engineers over the same set of facts, the present case involves the potential obligation of a single engineer to disclose the fact that an anticipated commercial development will significantly increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.763905"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .