Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The term is also used in some jurisdictions as a means to determine whether a jury award is out of line with the underlying civil wrong; a jury award can be overturned on appeal if, by its amount relative to the underlying civil wrong, it "shocks the conscience".
A civil wrong or wrong is a cause of action under civil law. Types include tort, breach of contract and breach of trust. [1] Something that amounts to a civil wrong is wrongful. A wrong involves the violation of a right because wrong and right are contrasting terms. [2]
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. [1] Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who ...
At worst a civil wrong had been committed, either nuisance by the appellant [Chamberlain] or trespass by the respondent [Lindon]. It should have been for the civil courts to decide which." [2] Thus a lawful excuse may be acknowledged by a court to arise when a person honestly but mistakenly believes that the actions are necessary and reasonable.
The civil fine is not considered to be a criminal punishment, because it is primarily sought in order to compensate the state for harm done to it, rather than to punish the wrongful conduct. As such, a civil penalty, in itself, will not carry a punishment of imprisonment or other legal penalties. [1] [better source needed]
Substantive due process demarcates the line between acts that courts deem subject to government regulation or legislation and those they consider beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and ...
Attorney misconduct is unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney. Attorney misconduct may include: conflict of interest, overbilling, false or misleading statements, knowingly pursuing frivolous and meritless lawsuits, concealing evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument ...
[citation needed] The examiner must also provide the witness with the opportunity to adopt or reject the previous statement. [1] In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness.