Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Prima facie (/ ˌ p r aɪ m ə ˈ f eɪ ʃ i,-ʃ ə,-ʃ i iː /; from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning "at first sight", [1] or "based on first impression". [2] The literal translation would be "at first face" or "at first appearance", from the feminine forms of primus ("first") and facies ("face"), both in the ablative case.
prima facie: at first face A matter that appears to be sufficiently based in the evidence as to be considered true. / ˈ p r aɪ m ə ˈ f eɪ ʃ i i / pro bono: for good Professional work done for free. / ˈ p r oʊ ˈ b oʊ n oʊ / pro bono publico: for the public good / ˈ p r oʊ ˈ b oʊ n oʊ ˈ p ʌ b l ɪ k oʊ / pro forma: as a matter ...
Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen sued under a theory of negligence and a theory of warranty. The court felt the proof was not sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence and gave the case to the jury solely on the warranty theory. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen, against both defendants.
Whilst a prima facie duty of care is imposed for physical harm where the criteria of proximity, foreseeability, and policy are fulfilled, liability for psychiatric harm rests upon an individual's connection to a traumatising event; those not physically endangered may not be owed a duty of care unless they can fulfil several relational criteria ...
English courts have recognised that there are four steps required to establish a claim in unjust enrichment. [2] If the following elements are satisfied, a claimant has a prima facie right to restitution: the defendant has been enriched; this enrichment is at the claimant's expense; this enrichment at the claimant's expense is unjust; and
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
The courts had to determine whether the clause was in fact a penalty. The leading judgment was given by Lord Dunedin, who opined as follows: Though the parties to a contract who use the words "penalty" or "liquidated damages" may prima facie be supposed to mean what they say, yet the expression used is not conclusive. The Court must find out ...
The court agreed that the plaintiff had been treated unfairly, however they rejected the plaintiff's argument that the courts were in violation of Article 40.1 on the basis that his co-accuseds had been tried in the ordinary courts: "When there isn't a prima facie case of mala fides, the Director of Public Prosecutions can't be ask to explain ...