|
Defense Counsel
In a civil proceeding or criminal prosecution under the common law or under statute, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) in an effort to avert civil liability or criminal conviction. A defense is put forward by a party to defeat a suit or action brought against the party, and may be based on legal grounds or on factual claims. Besides contesting the accuracy of an allegation made against the defendant in the proceeding, the defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable. Acceptance of a defense by the court completely exonerates the defendant and not merely mitigates the liability. The defense phase of a trial occurs after the prosecution phase, that is, after the prosecution "rests". Other parts of the defense include the opening and closing arguments and the cross-examination during the prosecution phase. S ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Civil Proceeding
Civil may refer to: * Civic virtue, or civility *Civil action, or lawsuit * Civil affairs *Civil and political rights * Civil disobedience *Civil engineering * Civil (journalism), a platform for independent journalism *Civilian, someone not a member of armed forces * Civil law (other), multiple meanings * Civil liberties * Civil religion * Civil service *Civil society *Civil war A civil war or intrastate war is a war between organized groups within the same state (or country). The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies ... * Civil (surname) {{disambiguation ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cause Of Action
A cause of action or right of action, in law, is a set of facts sufficient to justify suing to obtain money or property, or to justify the enforcement of a legal right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit (such as breach of contract, battery (tort), battery, or false imprisonment). The legal document which carries a claim is often called a 'statement of claim' in English law, or a 'complaint' in U.S. federal practice and in many U.S. states. It can be any communication notifying the party to whom it is addressed of an alleged fault which resulted in damages, often expressed in amount of money the receiving party should pay/reimburse. To pursue a cause of action, a plaintiff pleading, pleads or allegation, alleges facts in a complaint, the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. A cause of action generally encompasses both the legal theory (the legal wrong the plaintiff claims to have suffered) and the Legal remedy, remedy (t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Justification (jurisprudence)
Justification is a defense in a criminal case, by which a defendant who committed the crime as defined, claims they did no wrong, because committing the crime advanced some social interest or vindicated a right of such importance that it outweighs the wrongfulness of the crime. Justification and excuse are related but different defenses (see Justification and excuse).Criminal Law Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder Justification is an exception to the prohibition of committing certain offenses. Justification can be a defense in a prosecution for a criminal offense. When an act is justified, a person is not criminally liable even though their act would otherwise constitute an offense. For example, to intentionally commit a homicide would be considered murder. However, it is not considered a crime if committed in self-defense. In addition to self-defense, the other justification defenses are defense of others, defense of property, and neces ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Unclean Hands
Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine, is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in ''Uncommon Law'' by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court". A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. In other words, 'unclean ha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mistake (criminal Law)
A mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is. Discussion Most criminal law systems in developed states exclude mistake of law as a defense, because allowing defendants to invoke their own ignorance of the law would breach the public policy represented by the Latin maxim: '' ignorantia legis neminem excusat''. But someone operating under a mistake of fact will not generally be liable, because, although the defendant has committed the ''actus reus'' of the offense, the defendant may honestly believe in a set of facts that would prevent him or her from forming the requisite ''mens rea'' required to constitute the crime. For example: A defendant goes into a supermarket and places ei ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Necessity (tort)
In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land, or conversion. The Latin phrase from common law is ''necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata'' ("Necessity induces a privilege because of a private right"). A court will grant this privilege to a trespasser when the risk of harm to an individual or society is apparently and reasonably greater than the harm to the property. Unlike the privilege of self-defense, those who are harmed by individuals invoking the necessity privilege are usually free from any wrongdoing. Generally, an individual invoking this privilege is obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive or nominal damages. Private necessity Private necessity is the use of another's property for private reasons. W ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Act Of God
In legal usage in the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible. An act of God may amount to an exception to liability in contracts (as under the Hague–Visby Rules) or it may be an "insured peril" in an insurance policy. In Scots law the equivalent term is ''damnum fatale''. By contrast, other extraordinary man-made or political events are deemed '' force majeure''. Contract law In the law of contracts, an act of God may be interpreted as an implied defense under the rule of impossibility or impracticability. If so, the promise is discharged because of unforeseen occurrences, which were unavoidable and would result in insurmountable delay, expense, or other material breach. Under the English common law, contractual obligations were deemed sacrosanct, so failure to honour a contract could lead to an order for specific performance or internment in a debtor' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
In Pari Delicto
''In pari delicto (potior/melior est conditio possidentis)'', Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition of the possessor)", is a legal term used to refer to two persons or entities who are equally at fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort. The doctrine is subject to a number of exceptions, including that the plaintiff must be an active, voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct, the plaintiff's wrongdoing must be at least substantially equal to or greater than that of the defendant,James M. Fischer (2010)''Understanding Remedies, ''. the "adverse interest" exception, and the "innocent insider" exception. The doctrine The phrase is most commonly used by courts when relief is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of equal wrongdoing by both parties, or greater culpability on the part of the plaintiff. The phrase means, in essence, that if both parties are equally at fault or the plaintiff is at greater fault, the court will not inv ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Consent
Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another. It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law. United Nations agencies and initiatives in sex education programs believe that teaching the topic of consent as part of a comprehensive sexuality education is beneficial. Types of consent include implied consent, express consent, informed consent and unanimous consent. Types * An expression of consent is one that is unmistakably stated, rather than implied. It may be given in writing, by speech (orally), or non-verbally, e.g. by a clear gesture ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
''Volenti non fit iniuria'' (or ''injuria'') (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. ''Volenti'' applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. ''Volenti'' is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk". ''Volenti'' is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk". In this context, ''volenti'' can be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent some torts arising in the first place. For example, consent to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
' (Latin "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise") is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ' is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in ''Patel v Mirza''. 016UKSC 42 Illegality in English Law Development In the early case of ''Holman v Johnson'' Lord Mansfield CJ set out the rationale for the illegality doctrine. Tort In the law of tort, the principle would prevent a criminal from bringing a claim against (for example) a fellow criminal. In '' National Coal Board v England'', Lord Asquith said, In ' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Statute Of Frauds
The Statute of Frauds (29 Car 2 c 3) (1677) was an Act of the Parliament of England. It required that certain types of contracts, wills, and grants, and assignment or surrender of leases or interest in real property must be in writing and signed to avoid fraud on the court by perjury and subornation of perjury. It also required that documents of the courts be signed and dated. The attested date for the enactment of the Statute of Frauds is 16 April 1677 (New Style). The Act is believed to have been primarily drafted by Lord Nottingham assisted by Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Francis North and Sir Leoline Jenkins. When the Statute of Frauds was originally enacted, its sections and the clauses within section 4 were not numbered. Numbers where added when the Act was republished in the '' Statutes at Large''. ''The Statute at Large'', Cambridge Edition published in 1770 divided the Act into 25 sections. The section on the sale of goods was section 17. In ''The Statutes of the Realm'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
