英文字典中文字典


英文字典中文字典51ZiDian.com



中文字典辞典   英文字典 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p   q   r   s   t   u   v   w   x   y   z       







请输入英文单字，中文词皆可：

alligation    
和均性

和均性

Alligation \Al`li*ga"tion\, n. [L. alligatio.]
1. The act of tying together or attaching by some bond, or
the state of being attached. [R.]
[1913 Webster]

2. (Arith.) A rule relating to the solution of questions
concerning the compounding or mixing of different
ingredients, or ingredients of different qualities or
values.
[1913 Webster]

Note: The rule is named from the method of connecting
together the terms by certain ligature-like signs.
Alligation is of two kinds, medial and alternate;
medial teaching the method of finding the price or
quality of a mixture of several simple ingredients
whose prices and qualities are known; alternate,
teaching the amount of each of several simple
ingredients whose prices or qualities are known, which
will be required to make a mixture of given price or
quality.
[1913 Webster]


请选择你想看的字典辞典：
单词字典翻译
alligation查看　alligation　在百度字典中的解释百度英翻中〔查看〕
alligation查看　alligation　在Google字典中的解释Google英翻中〔查看〕
alligation查看　alligation　在Yahoo字典中的解释Yahoo英翻中〔查看〕

安装中文字典英文字典查询工具!


中文字典英文字典工具:
选择颜色:
输入中英文单字

































































英文字典中文字典相关资料:


  • Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona - United States Courts
    In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the age of a juvenile being questioned by police should be taken into consideration when deciding if he or she is in police custody and, therefore, entitled to a Miranda warning
  • Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia
    Because of the defendant's low I Q and poor English-language skills, the U S Court of Appeals ruled that it was a "clear error" when the district court found that Garibay had "knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights "
  • 1966: Miranda v. Arizona - A Latinx Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases . . .
    In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution
  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) - Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center
    Miranda v Arizona: Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and
  • Miranda v. Arizona | Definition, Background, Facts | Britannica
    Arizona reversed an Arizona court’s conviction of Ernesto Miranda on charges of kidnapping and rape
  • Miranda v. Arizona | Constitution Center
    Miranda’s oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court’s new rules One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result
  • Miranda v. Arizona: The Landmark Decision on Suspect Rights
    Understand the Supreme Court's pivotal 1966 decision that codified the protection against self-incrimination during all police custody The 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v Arizona established a procedural requirement to protect the rights of criminal suspects during police questioning
  • Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary: What You Need to Know
    This list of rights, known as the “Miranda” warning, comes from a 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda v Arizona In that case, the Supreme Court had to decide under what circumstances police must inform people of their rights under the Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments – and how to do so
  • Miranda v. Arizona – Case Brief Summary - Studicata
    The final holding of the U S Supreme Court in Miranda v Arizona was that statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the defendant is informed of their rights to remain silent and to counsel, and waives these rights knowingly and intelligently
  • Miranda v. Arizona | History | Research Starters - EBSCO
    Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the 5-4 majority decision holding that Ernesto Miranda had his constitutional rights denied him when he was interrogated by police at the station while under arrest





中文字典-英文字典  2005-2009