Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

legal prejudice

Read a random definition: Stepped-up basis

A quick definition of legal prejudice:

Legal prejudice is when one party's legal rights or claims are damaged or detrimentally affected. It can be used as a defense to defeat an opposing party's action, especially in cases where the defendant can show that dismissing the case without prejudice would deprive them of a substantive property right or preclude them from raising a defense that will be unavailable or endangered in a second suit. Prejudice can also refer to a preconceived judgment formed without a factual basis or a strong bias.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Legal prejudice refers to a condition that can defeat a party's legal rights or claims. It can also refer to a preconceived judgment formed without a factual basis.

  • If a defendant can show that dismissing a case will deprive them of a substantive property right or preclude them from raising a defense that will be unavailable or endangered in a second suit, it can be considered legal prejudice.
  • Undue prejudice can occur when a fact-trier is exposed to evidence that is persuasive but inadmissible or that arouses emotions to the point where logical reasoning is abandoned.
  • Prejudicial publicity can occur when there is extensive media attention devoted to an upcoming civil or criminal trial, which can deprive the defendant of a fair trial under the Due Process Clause.

These examples illustrate how legal prejudice can harm a party's legal rights or claims, and how it can also refer to a preconceived judgment formed without a factual basis. It is important to avoid legal prejudice in order to ensure a fair and just legal process.

legal practitioner | legal presumption

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
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.