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 ...
In a criminal case, there is usually an arraignment or some other kind of appearance before the defendant comes to court. The pleading in the criminal case, which is entered on the record in open court, is usually either guilty or not guilty. Generally, speaking in private, civil cases there is no plea entered of guilt or innocence.
The Twombly court criticized the modern notice pleading standard derived from the landmark 1957 Conley v. Gibson decision, which had ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed at the pleading stage, "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief". [8]
Disjunction: the symbol appeared in Russell in 1908 [5] (compare to Peano's use of the set-theoretic notation of union); the symbol + is also used, in spite of the ambiguity coming from the fact that the + of ordinary elementary algebra is an exclusive or when interpreted logically in a two-element ring; punctually in the history a + together ...
The bill of exceptions was a relic of the early English practice in which parties submitted their pleadings orally (by reciting their allegations and pleas orally in open court) and the court ruled on those pleadings orally, and the court clerk recorded what had transpired in summary form in the written minutes of the court. [3]
The pleadings set out succinctly the claims made by each side, and their legal basis, and provide a basis to explore the issues in the case. They must specify the basic facts which are alleged, but need not evidence those facts or any extensive legal argument (these are addressed at later stages of the process).
Originating in the legal profession, argument in the alternative is a strategy in which a lawyer advances several competing (and possibly mutually exclusive) arguments in order to pre-empt objections by his adversary, with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's. [1]
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.