Legal Definitions - secundum allegata et probata

Secundum allegata et probata is a Latin legal principle that translates to "according to what has been alleged and proved."

This principle dictates that a court or any other decision-making body must base its judgment or ruling exclusively on the facts that have been formally presented (alleged) by the parties involved and subsequently supported by credible evidence (proved) during the legal proceedings. It serves as a fundamental safeguard to ensure fairness, impartiality, and due process, preventing decisions from being made on unstated claims, unverified information, or personal biases.

Here are some examples illustrating this principle:

• Civil Contract Dispute: Imagine a software development company sues a client, alleging that the client failed to pay the final installment for a custom application. The company claims the outstanding amount is $75,000. During the trial, the software company presents the signed contract, invoices, and email correspondence as evidence. However, the client successfully demonstrates that a portion of the work was incomplete and unusable, proving that only $50,000 worth of the work was actually delivered and accepted. In this scenario, the court, acting secundum allegata et probata, would likely rule that the client owes only the proven amount of $50,000, even though the company initially alleged a higher sum. The decision is limited to what was both alleged and then substantiated by evidence.

• Criminal Theft Case: A prosecutor charges an individual with grand theft, alleging they stole a luxury car valued at $80,000. During the trial, the prosecution presents security footage showing the defendant driving away in a car, but the footage is grainy, and the car's make and model cannot be definitively identified as the specific luxury vehicle. Furthermore, while the defendant is proven to have taken a car, the evidence only establishes the theft of a different, less expensive vehicle, valued at $20,000. The court, adhering to secundum allegata et probata, cannot convict the defendant of grand theft of the luxury car if the evidence only proves the theft of a less valuable vehicle. The judgment must align with the facts that were actually proven, even if the initial allegation was for a more serious crime.

• Professional License Revocation Hearing: A state medical board holds a hearing to consider revoking a doctor's license. The board formally alleges that the doctor engaged in negligent patient care on three specific occasions and failed to maintain proper medical records. During the hearing, the board presents patient charts, expert testimony, and witness statements. While the board successfully proves two instances of negligent care and the failure to maintain records, the evidence for the third alleged instance of negligence is found to be insufficient or contradictory. The medical board, bound by secundum allegata et probata, can only base its decision regarding the license revocation on the two proven instances of negligence and the record-keeping violation. Any unproven allegations, even if suspected, cannot be factored into the final ruling.