Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

in quibus infitiando lis crescit

Read a random definition: moral person

A quick definition of in quibus infitiando lis crescit:

Term: IN QUIBUS INFITIANDO LIS CRESCIT

Definition: In Roman law, this phrase means that when someone denies a claim for damages, the legal action can become more complicated and the damages can increase. For example, if someone denies owing money, they may end up having to pay more than the original amount claimed. This is because the denial makes the legal process longer and more difficult, which can result in a penalty of double, triple, or quadruple the original amount claimed.

A more thorough explanation:

IN QUIBUS INFITIANDO LIS CRESCIT

In Roman law, "in quibus infitiando lis crescit" means that the suit increases by denial. This phrase refers to the measure of damages in a legal action. If the defendant wrongfully denies a claim for damages, the defendant could be penalized by a multiple of the original claimed amount, usually double, triple, or quadruple.

For example, if a plaintiff sues a defendant for $10,000 in damages, and the defendant denies the claim, but the court finds that the defendant was at fault, the defendant may be ordered to pay $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 instead of just $10,000.

Another example is if a landlord wrongfully withholds a tenant's security deposit and the tenant sues for the return of the deposit. If the landlord denies the claim and the court finds that the landlord was at fault, the landlord may be ordered to pay double or triple the amount of the security deposit.

These examples illustrate how the suit increases by denial. If the defendant had not denied the claim, the damages would have been limited to the original amount claimed. However, by denying the claim, the defendant risks a higher penalty if found at fault.

inquest jury | inquilinus

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
also if you reduce the top end of lsat to 170, you have a 33% chance at NYU+columbia, 67% at NU, 33 at mich, 40% berk, 40% UCLA, 100% Cornell, and 50% gulc
realistically you would make it into at least one
15:16
I'm still waiting on a bunch of T14 so hopefully those stats are a good indicator
15:16
idk wait it out - if good offer take if no good offer R&R
i dont think you need to R&R im pretty sure you make it into at least one t14
but if you apply earlier its just a lot easier
15:17
thats odd I didn't see those stats, but ok. We talked abt this awhile back and I'm working on Columbia + Berkeley rn then Cornell, probs is I'm not gonna produce good Why X's before the 25th but whatever
https://www.lsd.law/search/cV9E6 this is artificially deflated because it's only below your stats
someone got into harvard and chicago with your stats
15:19
Why is that deflating it? isnt that a better indicator instead of choosing above median LSATs? Genuinely curious just wondering
when stats are close because of the variability you want a little above your stats and a little below to get more data, adcoms arent so finnicky that 2 points on the lsat is make or break unless it puts you above median, and even then 50% are below median so it's not as big of an impact as you might think. the reason the chanceme tool goes a little above and below your stats by default is to capture a more accurate picture
ie your softs/WE/essays might make you more or less competitive than any random applicant and the best way to account for that is to take a little above and a little below
15:21
got it, I was of the mindset that medians are pretty concrete so taking a +2 LSAT score range was just giving me irrelevant data. Thank you
15:21
Def my softs/essays are the strongest part of my application so hoping they shine through
they kind of are but you see with the data here is doesnt really change your chances going from 172 to 170
yeah youll be in a good place for this cycle
15:22
yeah I guess thats true, I've also been looking at "Included" not "Only" for URM so maybe that's a diff too
15:22
Appreciate it man!
yeah included is giving you data for nURM which isnt relevant for your cycle
and ofc, good luck :)
15:24
Holiday messages from law schools should be illegal
jackfrost11770
15:27
the cornell one actually gave me a heart attack no joke
15:28
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Thanks! Will def update you as they come out hahaha
CynicalOops
16:09
No one cares about me the way western new england cares about me
shaquilleoatmeal
17:16
gulc sending me a "Thank you for your continuing patience" almost has me shitting myself like the dude who hiked Acatanengo volcano
18:09
i’m wishing you guys happy holidays in a more sincere and genuine and heartfelt way than any of the law schools and also giving u a little kiss on the cheek
18:10
just btw
shaquilleoatmeal
18:15
😚
1a2b3c4d26z
18:25
Hi everyone
1a2b3c4d26z
18:26
Only a few more hours til work is over then I'm off for the rest of the week
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.