Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Alternative pleading (or pleading in the alternative) is the legal term [1] [2] in the law of the United States for a form of pleading that permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.
Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's. [1]
Code pleading places additional burdens on a party to plead the "ultimate facts" of its case, laying out the party's entire case and the facts or allegations underlying it. Notice pleading, by contrast, simply requires a "short and plain statement" showing only that the pleader is entitled to relief. (FRCP 8(a)(2)).
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous rulings regarding mental health and how society treats and regards the mentally ill. While some rulings applied very narrowly, perhaps to only one individual, other cases have had great influence over wide areas.
The pleading may simply be an answer, or the defendant may file a demurrer, a motion to dismiss, an objection to venue, a motion for a bill of particulars, or a statement of the defendant's grounds of defense. If the defendant objects to personal jurisdiction, the defendant must make a special appearance to assert either that the court lacks ...
Code pleading sought to abolish the distinction between law and equity. [7] It unified civil procedure for all types of actions as much as possible. The focus shifted from pleading the right form of action (that is, the right procedure) to pleading the right cause of action (that is, a substantive right to be enforced by the law). [8]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), [1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty, while still protesting his innocence, under duress, as a detainee status.