Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, the substantial certainty doctrine is the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with substantial certainty the effect would occur as a result of his action. [1] The doctrine can be used by courts as a test to determine whether or not a defendant committed a tort. For example, in Garratt v.
5. and that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended. The court decided that there existed specific jurisdiction over the defendants due to their interactions with the plaintiffs via the Internet services operated by eBay. Holding: Personal jurisdiction is established if the criteria of the Calder test are met.
This is a notable exception to the general rule given above that for almost all intentional torts only desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty will do. IIED also includes recklessness. This still distinguishes it from negligent infliction of emotional distress, though.
Relying on the definition of battery from the Restatement of Torts, the Court held that battery could only be found if it is shown that the boy knew with "substantial certainty" that after the chair was moved Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position. That is, the accused must be substantially certain that his action would ...
According to the IRS substantial presence test, workers without U.S. citizenship or permanent … Continue reading → The post IRS Substantial Presence Test for U.S. Residents appeared first on ...
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted ...
Williamson was later asked by sheriff’s investigators to take a polygraph test. The district attorney’s office said he agreed to the test and passed, which “at the time, cleared him of any ...
the test is satisfied if, as regards at least a substantial number of objects, it can be said with certainty that they fall within the trust; even though, as regards a substantial number of other persons, if they ever for some fanciful reason fell to be considered, the answer would have to be, not ‘they are outside the trust’, but ‘it is ...