Instead of explaining what EIMP means, courts simply have cited earlier cases asserting a state interest in EIMP.
With EIMP, this combination of improvisation and mimicry has the effect of twisting courts' words until they achieve the opposite of what they say.
The story of EIMP begins in 1977 with Superintendent v.
I first examine the origins, application, and consequences of the EIMP standard.
The second theme of this Article, subtler but just as important, is the tendency of courts to `mechanically rely on legal doctrine' rather than carefully scrutinize sources and their applicability.(6) As this Article traces the spread of EIMP into other jurisdictions as well as into other areas of law, the background of the analysis reveals how a single act of judicial activism (or judicial creativity, depending on one's point of view) can mushroom, distorting (or informing) an entire area of case law for decades.
To address the study's first two research questions, we computed frequency and percentage data for each of the 14 EIMPS items.
Construct validity of the EIMPS was investigated using a principal-components analysis, followed by varimax rotation.
These three Items were deleted, and a subsequent principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the 11 remaining EIMPS items.
EIMPS = Early Intervention Multicultural Practices Survey.
Taken together, measurement integrity findings suggested that the EIMPS questionnaire responses gained from these early interventionists evidenced acceptable (adequate) indexes of internal consistency reliability and construct validity.