A defense lawyer might say, «If my client had stolen the car, saving a life would have justified the theft,» suggesting that establishing the client`s guilt or innocence is useless as they would have identical legal implications. The Latin term arguendo is a legal term that means «for the sake of argumentation.» When arguing a point in court or in an academic setting, use the phrase «presume, argue that.. allows the individual to examine certain conclusions on the basis of disputed facts, without admitting that those facts are true. Preparation. Latin means «for reasons of argument,» used by lawyers in the context of «supposed reasoning,» that the facts were as the other party claims, but that the law prevents the other party from prevailing. Example: «Assuming the court concludes that our client, the defendant, acted negligently, the other party (the plaintiff) was so negligent that they cannot claim damages. In short, the lawyer does not admit anything, but only wants to make a legal argument. The word appears most often in appellate pleadings. If the expression in arguendo is used by a judge during a trial, it indicates that his comment is made only as an argument or illustration.
The statement does not directly affect the rest of the discussion. In particular, in an appellate court, a judge may ask a lawyer what impact another set of assumptions on the facts that determine a situation might have. Asking these questions is particularly useful in examining whether different patterns of fact might limit the appropriate level of possible involvement in a particular case. «Arguendo»[4], a Belgian law firm based in Hasselt, which based its name on this legal concept. This could be the case, for example, if a lawyer defends a paramedic who took extraordinary measures to save a person`s life, but is now being prosecuted for acting outside his or her field of activity. The lawyer might say something like, «Assuming that the defendant acted beyond his scope of practice, the fact that he saved the plaintiff`s life justifies his actions.» To explore this concept, consider the following definition of argumentation. The term arguendo often appears in court opinions when a judge wants to express that even if a party`s argument is correct, he will still not win the case. Arguendo is a Latin term that means «to argue» or «for the sake of arguing.» Assuming something is arguing, the person claims that a hypothetical statement is true for the purpose of reasoning, whether that statement is actually true or believes it to be true.
This legal term article is a heel. You can help Wikipedia by extending it. In a civil case over a contractual dispute, the defendant`s lawyer could argue: «Assuming that payment was delayed due to a banking error, the defendant is still not liable under the terms of the contract.» In the U.S. legal system, the term arguendo is often used in appeals and other important litigation documents. When a case is submitted to a court of appeal, a hearing rarely takes place, but the parties submit pleadings, which are legal documents in which the contentious facts of the case and the legal reasons why they consider the decision of the court of first instance to be erroneous, are discussed in detail. The judge of the Court of Appeal then reviews the briefs filed by all parties as well as other procedural documents in order to make a decision. Assuming that this reasoning allows a lawyer to review the premises` findings without admitting that these premises – often the alleged facts of the opposing party – could be true. [1] [2] Arguendo is a Latin legal term that means argumentative.
«Suppose the argument that … and similar expressions are used in courtrooms and academic legal circles, and sometimes in other fields, to refer to preliminary and unconfirmed assumptions made at the beginning of an argument to examine their implications. We conclude that the [Social Security Administration`s] reading is better aligned with the text of the law and its design in order to benefit mainly those who are supported by the employee who died during his lifetime. And even arguing that the SSA`s long-standing interpretation is not the only reasonable one, it is at least a permissible interpretation that deserves the Court`s respect under [Chevron]. 3. Just say no: «even accept arguendo», «arguendo», «arguendo» or even just «even accept». The term arguendo is also commonly used in education as law students learn the meaning and use of a long list of Latin legal terms. The term arguendo is a short and concise way of saying that the point is only discussed for the sake of argumentation, but should only be used in an environment where everyone present understands the term. This Latin term means nothing to most laymen.
For this reason, it`s a good idea to use the English term «for the way of argument» instead when presenting an argument to a jury or in writing for non-legal readers. The use of the Latin term arguendo allows a party to hypothetically discuss certain facts and examine probable hypotheses or conclusions without admitting that these facts are true. For example, in a civil suit, the plaintiff could argue that «assuming that the defendant`s obligation to compensate the plaintiff retroactively would set a precedent that would seriously harm the retailer`s business, this fact does not relieve the defendant of its legal obligations.» [A] An increasing number of judges of this Court have recently referred to international legal documents. This evolution is inevitable. Incidentally, it is desirable, natural and legally correct. For a concrete example of civil proceedings, see Tiffany and Company`s Reply Brief[3], Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 08-3947-CV (United States) Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 2008, p. 23, second paragraph): «Assuming that eBay`s obligation to take corrective action would affect eBay`s business, this fact can in no way relieve eBay of its legal obligations. 2. Just say no: «additional» and «further» and «additional». Justice Michael Kirby, Supreme Court of Australia, Wurridjal v.
Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Commonwealth, Supreme Court of Canada, Seaboyer v. The Queen in Chamber, the Eighth Circuit, clarified that a plaintiff is not required to prove more than one minor violation to assert a claim of undue force. On the other hand, any loss of income due to Hubbard`s job refusal, as well as any emotional distress or reputational damage he may also have suffered, is a consequence of rejecting the job offer. Moreover, the classic remedy for this loss is pecuniary damage. Rules of engagement: If a word or sentence in the first part of each sentence is printed in bold, the big guns didn`t write it down. For each of these terms, think about a lighter or shorter replacement before taking a look. 1817 Courtroom Latin < medieval Latin arguendum ("arguing") The Minister of the Interior presented open and secret evidence to prove the existence of a threat of serious terrorist attacks. But the Supreme Court`s advice on how to deal with our situation does not seem much more harmonious than the advice of the legislator. Lord Hoffmann, A(FC) and Others (FC) v. secretary of state in the Home Office, dissenting District Judge Patrick Schiltz, Newton v. Walker. Patricia Wald, former presiding judge of the DC circuit, Hubbard v.
EPA. Here are six of the most successful changes, before and after: The only case presented to the judge or to us was that the custodian was strictly responsible under the Animal Act of 1971. 1. Just say no: «in relation to», «in relation to», «in relation to», «concerned» and for the Anglo-British types «in relation to» or «in relation to». It is not uncommon for a judge of an appellate court to ask counsel for the parties to discuss the implications of another set of alleged facts for reasons of argument. This is sometimes useful in determining whether another situation could change the scope of the court`s decision. Small changes in wording can reinvigorate your style by speeding up and spicing up your prose. The origin of the word Arguendo is based on the Latin word arguendum, which means «to argue». Try «on», «over», «for», «as» or «as for».
In this example, the lawyer hypothetically assumes that the plaintiff`s reasoning is correct, while proving that the defendant should still win the case. Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner, Cecaj v. Gonzalez To see how this works, let`s agree with some of the world`s best judicial writers below. Or is it an «infra with some of the world`s most famous lawyers»? Although he is a well-known local figure and a candidate for public office, he was arrested during the campaign and beaten by the police, allegedly because he did not have identity papers with him. He also received threatening calls that he said came from the police. With respect to [his] alleged intention to mislead, the test set out in Rule 9011 is objective and not subjective. Seventh Circle Judge Frank Easterbrook, In re Sinclair. The examples show that evidence can be of great importance in uncovering the truth and determining whether the accused is guilty or innocent under the law – the ultimate goal of the trial. For six more words and phrases «No thanks», click here.
