Also known as: dolose · dolus · doloso · fraud · malice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Fraud or deceit involving bad or mischievous design.
Dominic Drake lured his rival to a remote cabin by falsely promising a business deal. Once there, Dominic deliberately shot the rival. The deliberate intent formed through the initial deceit supplied the express malice required for murder.
Deborah Dunn accepted the deed at closing without any fraud clause. After discovering undisclosed defects, she sued on the original contract promises. Merger did not discharge the promises because the seller's dolo created an express exception allowing the post-closing claim.
Darius Dixon alleged that Dakota Industries misrepresented its financials in a securities sale. The complaint listed the exact dates, speakers, and documents containing the false statements. The particularity requirement was satisfied even though intent was pled generally.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Daniel Diaz discovered his client planned to use legal services to conceal assets in a fraudulent transfer. After discussing the limits under Rules 1.2 and 1.4, the client persisted. The lawyer was required to withdraw.
Destiny Davis formed Duffy Construction as an undercapitalized shell with no formalities. She commingled funds and used the entity to defraud suppliers. The court disregarded the corporate form to prevent sanctioning the fraud.
Diego Duarte offered a will that left assets to a caregiver. The contestant alleged the will was procured by fraud. The contestant bore the burden of establishing lack of testamentary intent or fraud.
Dolo refers to fraud or deceit involving bad or mischievous design. It captures intentional misleading conduct that induces another to act to their detriment.
Dolo supplies the deliberate intent that constitutes express malice. Negligence lacks this purposeful state of mind and typically supports only manslaughter.
Merger does not bar claims based on fraud. A buyer may still sue for deceit even after accepting the deed because fraud is an express exception to the merger doctrine.
The circumstances constituting the fraud must be stated with particularity. The defendant's intent or knowledge may be alleged generally.
Withdrawal is required when the client persists in using the lawyer's services to commit or further a crime or fraud after the lawyer has discussed the ethical limits.
The plaintiff must prove unity of interest so that separate personalities no longer exist and that adherence to the corporate fiction would sanction fraud or promote injustice.
The contestant of the will must establish fraud. The proponent first shows due execution. The contestant then carries the burden on fraud.
…the statements were libelous per se, "the law . . . implies legal injury from the bare fact of publication itself," "falsity and malice are presumed," "general damages need not be alleged or proved but are presumed," and "punitive damages may be awarded by the jury even though the amount of actual damages is neither found…