Legal Definitions - non usurpavit

The Latin term non usurpavit translates to "he has not usurped." In a legal context, it represents a defendant's formal denial that they have wrongfully or illegally seized an office, position, or special privilege (known as a franchise).

Essentially, when someone is accused of taking control of a public or private office, or a specific right granted by a government, without proper authority, their defense that they did not do so – that their claim to the office or right is legitimate – is an assertion of non usurpavit.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Corporate Board Dispute: Imagine a situation where a long-standing member of a non-profit organization's board of directors is removed, and a new individual is appointed to their seat. The removed director might file a lawsuit, claiming that the new appointee illegally "usurped" their position because the removal process violated the organization's bylaws. The new board member's legal defense, asserting that they were properly appointed according to all rules and did not wrongfully seize the office, would be an argument of non usurpavit.

• Challenge to a Public Official: Consider a newly elected mayor whose eligibility is challenged by a rival candidate. The rival alleges that the mayor does not meet a specific residency requirement outlined in the city charter and therefore "usurped" the office. The mayor's legal response, presenting evidence of their legitimate residency and arguing that they are rightfully in office and did not illegally seize it, would be a declaration of non usurpavit.

• Dispute Over an Exclusive Right: Suppose a state government grants a specific utility company an exclusive "franchise" – a special right – to provide water services to a particular rural county. If a different, smaller company begins laying pipes and offering water services in that same county, the state or the authorized utility company might sue them, alleging usurpation of the exclusive franchise. The smaller company's defense, arguing that they have a legitimate right to operate, perhaps under a different classification or in an area not covered by the exclusive grant, would be a claim of non usurpavit.