Also known as: to show
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin phrase used in legal proceedings to indicate the purpose of demonstrating or establishing a fact, proposition, or element of a claim or defense.
Anika Anand stood trial for theft after taking electronics from a shipping container. The prosecution sought to introduce her prior conviction for similar cargo diversion. The court excluded the evidence because it served only to show character rather than a non-propensity purpose such as intent.
Anthony Arnold emailed an order for pharmaceuticals to Aurora Biotech. Aurora shipped the goods and Arnold accepted and paid for them without a signed writing. The parties' conduct recognizing the transaction formed an enforceable contract for the sale of goods.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Aaron Adams faced drug charges and sought to question the state's key witness about his probation status from a juvenile adjudication. The trial court permitted the inquiry because it was necessary to show bias and protect the defendant's confrontation rights.
Antonio Alvarado transferred title to his warehouse to Atlas Ventures by absolute deed while borrowing funds. When Atlas later refused reconveyance after repayment, the court admitted parol evidence to show the deed was security only and ordered reconveyance.
Andrew Avery moved for appointment of a neutral toxicologist in a products liability suit against Avalon Pharmaceuticals. The court issued an order to show cause why an expert should not be appointed and ultimately selected a mutually acceptable candidate who consented to serve.
Andre Antoine executed a document labeled his last will that left property to a girlfriend. Extrinsic evidence showed the document was created only to induce her to remain in the relationship. The court held the instrument ineffective as a will because it lacked genuine testamentary intent.
The phrase signals the specific purpose for which evidence is offered, such as proving intent rather than character under Rule 404(b). Courts use it to distinguish permissible from prohibited uses of prior acts.
Yes. Conduct by both parties that recognizes the existence of a contract for the sale of goods is sufficient to form the agreement even without a signed writing.
Cross-examination is permitted when the juvenile adjudication or probation status is necessary to show bias or attack credibility and the Confrontation Clause requires it.
The grantor retains an equitable right to redeem, and upon repayment the grantee must reconvey title.
The court may issue an order to show cause why an expert should not be appointed and may appoint only a person who consents to serve.
Extrinsic evidence may show the document was executed for a collateral non-testamentary purpose, rendering it ineffective as a will.
…General of the United States, severally moved the court for a rule to James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding him to cause to be delivered to them respectively their several commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. This…