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.
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 ...
Most courts will still hold Dave's negligence to be an actual cause, as his conduct was a substantial factor in causing Paula's damage. This is sometimes called the substantial factor test. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80 (1948) Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. 2d 486 (1944)
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 ...
The leading test of certainty of objects here is also the "any given postulant test", applied to discretionary trusts in McPhail v Doulton. [29] The courts attempted to mitigate this test in Re Baden’s Deed Trusts (no 2); [30] however, all three judges of the Court of Appeal gave separate reasons.
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 ...
Hamm took a drug test that weekend, knowing he would fail. A week later, he delivered himself to his probation officer and soon after he was booked into the Campbell County jail. But before that, he had called Greenwell, Grateful Life’s intake supervisor. Hamm had begged to be allowed back into the program. Greenwell had turned him down.
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.