Present Case Precedent Distinguishing from BER 65-9 and 79-2
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Present_Case_Precedent_Distinguishing_from_BER_65-9_and_79-2
Properties
Instance of
ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState
Active period
During Board's ethical review of the present case
Affected parties
Engineer A
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Public body receiving testimony
Confidence
0.91
Importance
medium
Subject
Board's analysis distinguishing the present case (single engineer's disclosure obligation) from prior cases (disagreements between multiple engineers on same facts)
Terminated by
Board's conclusion that Engineer A's disclosure obligation is governed by professional judgment about relevance and pertinence
Triggering event
Board's invocation of BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 as instructive precedents while recognizing the present case involves a different ethical question
Urgency level
low
Source Evidence
Source text
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
Text references
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
the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
TTL
@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:Present_Case_Precedent_Distinguishing_from_BER_65-9_and_79-2 a proeth:ComparativeCasePrecedentDistinguishingState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Present Case Precedent Distinguishing from BER 65-9 and 79-2" ;
proeth:activeperiod "During Board's ethical review of the present case" ;
proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A",
"NSPE Board of Ethical Review",
"Public body receiving testimony" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
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:stateclass "Comparative Case Precedent Distinguishing State" ;
proeth:subject "Board's analysis distinguishing the present case (single engineer's disclosure obligation) from prior cases (disagreements between multiple engineers on same facts)" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Board's conclusion that Engineer A's disclosure obligation is governed by professional judgment about relevance and pertinence" ;
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",
"the Board used the two earlier cases to show that engineers can ethically reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts" ;
proeth:triggeringevent "Board's invocation of BER Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 as instructive precedents while recognizing the present case involves a different ethical question" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "low" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.757073"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
94
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T18:50:51.550868+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T19:13:05.757073
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction