Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.
The Supreme Court's 2009 Iqbal case elaborated the heightened standard of pleading it established two years previously in Twombly, and established that it was generally applicable in all federal civil litigation and not limited to antitrust law: Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept ...
Some jurisdictions, like California and Florida, still authorize general denials of each and every allegation in the complaint. At the time the defendant files an answer, the defendant also raises all "affirmative" defenses. The defendant may also assert counterclaims for damages or equitable relief against the plaintiff.
Florida recognizes just seven different pleadings in Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.100: [14] Complaint (or if designated by statute/rule, "Petition") Answer; Reply (if the answer contains a defense, the opposing party must file a reply to avoid it) Answer to a counterclaim; Answer to a crossclaim (if the answer contains a crossclaim)
In the common law, an answer is the first pleading by a defendant, usually filed and served upon the plaintiff within a certain strict time limit after a civil complaint or criminal information or indictment has been served upon the defendant.
(In law, this is not a defense as such but an argument that the case should not be heard at all.) Failure to state a cause of action or other insufficiencies of pleading. Any of the affirmative defenses. Defenses conferred by statute – such as a statute of limitations or the statute of frauds.
Assumption of risk is a defense, specifically an affirmative defense, in the law of torts, which bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of their injury.
Because pleading in the alternative is generally permitted in criminal cases, a defendant may claim to have not committed the crime itself, but at the same time may claim that if the defendant had committed the crime, the act was excused for a reason such as insanity or intoxication, or was justified due to provocation or self defense.