Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Negligence per se is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). The doctrine is effectively a form of strict liability . Negligence per se means greater liability than contributory negligence .
Per se may refer to: per se, a Latin phrase meaning "by itself" or "in itself". Illegal per se, the legal usage in criminal and antitrust law;
This is a comparison of English dictionaries, which are dictionaries about the language of English.The dictionaries listed here are categorized into "full-size" dictionaries (which extensively cover the language, and are targeted to native speakers), "collegiate" (which are smaller, and often contain other biographical or geographical information useful to college students), and "learner's ...
A chart of accounts (COA) is a list of financial accounts and reference numbers, grouped into categories, such as assets, liabilities, equity, revenue and expenses, and used for recording transactions in the organization's general ledger. Accounts may be associated with an identifier (account number) and a caption or header and are coded by ...
The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but, strictly speaking, to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the " democratic socialists " and the " reactionaries " who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation. [ 13 ]
Qui facit per alium facit per se (anglicised Late Latin), [1] which means "He who acts through another does the act himself", is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. [2] It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability."
A number of cases have subsequently raised doubts about the validity of the illegal per se rule. Under modern Antitrust theories, the traditionally illegal per se categories create more of a presumption of unreasonableness. [1] The court carefully narrowed the per se treatment and began issuing guidelines.
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.