External links
-
The dictionary definition of arguendo at Wiktionary
 | This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Arguendo is a Latin legal term meaning for the sake of argument. "Assuming, arguendo, that ..." and similar phrases are used in courtroom settings, academic legal settings, and occasionally in other domains, to designate provisional and unendorsed assumptions that will be made at the beginning of an argument in order to explore their implications.
The Latin word arguendō is the ablative case of the gerund of the verb arguere, which means 'assert' or 'clarify'. [1] The English word argue is derived from the same Latin verb. [2]
Assuming arguendo allows an attorney to examine the conclusions of premises without admitting that these premises—often the asserted facts of the opposing party—could be true. [3] [4]
A criminal defense attorney may say, "if, arguendo, my client stole the car, then saving a life would have justified stealing it," thus suggesting that determining the client's guilt or innocence is pointless because they would cause identical legal effects.
Particularly in an appellate court, a judge may ask an attorney what the effects of a different set of assumptions, made arguendo, about the facts governing a situation might be. Asking these questions is especially useful in exploring whether different fact patterns might limit the proper scope of a possible holding in a given case.
For a real example in a civil case, see Tiffany and Company's Reply Brief, [5] Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc. , 08-3947-CV (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit 2008, p. 23, second paragraph): "In any event, assuming arguendo that requiring eBay to take remedial measures would impair eBay's business, that fact cannot relieve eBay of its legal obligations.
The dictionary definition of arguendo at Wiktionary| | This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Historically, begging the question refers to a fault in a dialectical argument in which the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true. In modern usage, it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it. This makes it an example of circular reasoning.
A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.
Caveat emptor is Latin for "Let the buyer beware". It has become a proverb in English. Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of other goods. The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arises from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller.
A brief is a written legal document used in various legal adversarial systems that is presented to a court arguing why one party to a particular case should prevail. Appellate briefs establishes the legal argument for the party, explaining why the reviewing court should affirm or reverse the lower court's judgment based on legal precedent and citations to the controlling cases or statutory law.
Despite the various English dialects spoken from country to country and within different regions of the same country, there are only slight regional variations in English orthography, the two most notable variations being British and American spelling. Many of the differences between American and British/English in the Commonwealth of Nations date back to a time before spelling standards were developed. For instance, some spellings seen as "American" today were once commonly used in Britain, and some spellings seen as "British" were once commonly used in the United States.
The Attorney-General for Ireland was an Irish and then United Kingdom government office-holder. He was senior in rank to the Solicitor-General for Ireland: both advised the Crown on Irish legal matters. With the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922, the duties of the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for Ireland were taken over by the Attorney General of Ireland. The office of Solicitor-General for Ireland was abolished at the same time for reasons of economy. This led to repeated complaints from the first Attorney General of Ireland, Hugh Kennedy, about the "immense volume of work" which he was now forced to deal with single-handedly.
Legal status is the status or position held by an entity as determined by the law. It includes or entails a set of privileges, obligations, powers or restrictions that a person or thing has as encompassed in or declared by legislation.
A rescript is a public government document. More formally, it refers to such a document issued not on the initiative of the author, but in response to a question posed to the author. The word originates from replies issued by Roman emperors to such questions and is also used in modern legal terminology and the Papal curia.
Legal malpractice is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by a lawyer during the provision of legal services that causes harm to a client.
Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.
A threat is a communication of intent to inflict harm or loss on another person. Intimidation is a tactic used between conflicting parties to make the other timid or psychologically insecure for coercion or control. The act of intimidation for coercion is considered as a threat.
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. 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. Dailey (1955), the Washington Supreme Court remanded a case back to the lower courts to determine whether or not the five year-old defendant "knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been."
The posse comitatus, frequently shortened to posse, is in common law a group of people mobilized by the conservator of peace – typically a reeve, sheriff, chief, or another special/regional designee like an officer of the peace potentially accompanied by or with the direction of a justice or ajudged parajudicial process given the imminence of actual damage – to suppress lawlessness, defend the people, or otherwise protect the place, property, and public welfare. The posse comitatus as an English jurisprudentially defined doctrine dates back to 9th-century England and the campaigns of Alfred the Great, and before in ancient custom and law of locally martialed forces, simultaneous thereafter with the officiation of sheriff nomination to keep the regnant peace. There must be a lawful reason for a posse, which can never be used for lawlessness.
The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the reservation of jurisdiction by a federal district court did not bar the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a state court's ruling, and also overturned certain laws enacted by the state of Virginia in 1956 as part of the Stanley Plan and massive resistance, as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The statutes struck down by the Supreme Court had expanded the definitions of the traditional common law crimes of champerty and maintenance, as well as barratry, and had been targeted at the NAACP and its civil rights litigation.
Chemical endangerment is the crime of exposing a child to a controlled substance or an environment in which it is produced. It was added to the Alabama legal code in 2006, with the intention of protecting children from methamphetamine laboratories. Since then, it has been used to prosecute women who give birth to children that test positive for harmful drugs and also THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
In logic, an argumentum e contrario, also known as appeal from the contrary, denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case. It is the opposite of the analogy. When analogy is allowed, e contrario is forbidden and vice versa. Arguments e contrario are often used in the legal system as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws. Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments e contrario are not by definition fallacies.