Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Disjunctive allegations are allegations in a pleading joined by an "or". In a complaint, disjunctive allegations are usually per se defective because such a pleading does not put the party on notice of which allegations they must defend. [1] On the other hand, defendants often plead in the alternative by listing seemingly inconsistent defenses ...
The name "disjunctive syllogism" derives from its being a syllogism, a three-step argument, and the use of a logical disjunction (any "or" statement.) For example, "P or Q" is a disjunction, where P and Q are called the statement's disjuncts. The rule makes it possible to eliminate a disjunction from a logical proof. It is the rule that
Legal syllogism is a legal concept concerning the law and its application, specifically a form of argument based on deductive reasoning and seeking to establish whether a specified act is lawful. [1] A syllogism is a form of logical reasoning that hinges on a question, a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
Notice pleading is the dominant form of pleading used in the United States today. [2] In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. One goal of these rules was to relax the strict rules of code pleading. [2] The focus of the cause of action was shifted to discovery (another goal of the FRCP). [2]
Commutativity of conjunction can be expressed in sequent notation as: ()and ()where is a metalogical symbol meaning that () is a syntactic consequence of (), in the one case, and () is a syntactic consequence of () in the other, in some logical system;
In 2007, the United States Supreme Court overruled Conley, creating a new, stricter standard of a pleading's required specificity.Under the standard the Court set forth in Conley, a complaint need only state facts which make it "conceivable" that it could prove its legal claims—that is, that a court could only dismiss a claim if it appeared, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff would be able ...
In regards to contract law, arguing in the alternative is done where a dispute arises over the terms of a contract. In a particular case it may be best for the plaintiff to allege that a statement made was to become a term of the contract. However the circumstances of the case may be such that the plaintiff cannot be certain that the court will ...
Early federal and state civil procedure in the United States was rather ad hoc and was based on traditional common law procedure but with much local variety. There were varying rules that governed different types of civil cases such as "actions" at law or "suits" in equity or in admiralty; these differences grew from the history of "law" and "equity" as separate court systems in English law.