Also known as: ex debito justiciae · as of right · of right
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle under which a court or authority must grant relief or recognition when justice requires it. The principle treats the entitlement as arising from an obligation of justice rather than from judicial discretion or grace.
Prime Restaurant modified its senior mortgage with Field Kitchen after Plains Food recorded a junior lien. The modification added cash-reserve covenants and increased the loan ceiling. Because the changes fell within an unterminated reservation of rights, the modified senior mortgage retained its original priority position against the junior lien as a matter of right.
The Johnson Partnership and its predecessors used a disputed strip for farming and grazing under a good-faith mistaken-boundary belief for decades. Successive periods of possession were tacked together. The partnership thereby acquired title to the strip as a matter of right once the statutory period was satisfied.
After being locked out of his apartment, Luis forced open a storage closet to retrieve his furniture. He reasonably believed the manager had no claim of right to the items and that delay for a court order would cause exceptional hardship. Luis was therefore justified in using force to reenter as a matter of right.
Dana ordered maintenance staff to restrain Luis from removing furniture the complex claimed to possess. Luis knew the staff acted under a claim of right to protect the property. He therefore had no right to respond with force and was required to resolve the dispute through legal process.
Mia faced an unarmed former employee demanding return of a console. She could have locked herself in the office or placed the item on the floor and stepped away with complete safety. Because she knew retreat or surrender was possible, she had no right to use deadly force in self-defense.
An indigent defendant convicted after trial sought appointed counsel for his first appeal. The appeal functioned as an appeal of right under state procedure. Counsel was therefore required to be furnished as a matter of right under constitutional guarantees.
In 1943 a stockholder owning 100 shares of Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, a Delaware corporation doing business in New Jersey, filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the corporation and its managers and directors. The complaint alleged that since 1929 the individual defendants had engaged in a continuing conspiracy to enrich themselves at the corporation’s expense, wasting or diverting assets exceeding $100,000,000. The plaintiff had demanded that the corporation institute proceedings for recovery, but the individual defendants’ control prevented it from doing so. The plaintiff was one of 16,000 stockholders and held only 100 of the corporation’s more than two million outstanding shares; together with 150 shares held by an intervenor, the combined interest approximated 0.0125 percent of the stock and had a market value that had never exceeded $9,000. The action remained pending when, in 1945, New Jersey enacted a statute requiring a plaintiff with so small an interest to post security for the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of the defense if unsuccessful and making the plaintiff liable for those expenses. The corporate defendant moved to require a bond of $125,000, pointing to its bylaws that might obligate it to indemnify the individual defendants. The District Court held the state statute inapplicable to the federal action. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA senior mortgage or the obligation it secures that is modified by the parties retains priority against junior interests except to the extent the modification is materially prejudicial and is not within the scope of a reservation of right to modify.
Possession must be actual, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile or under claim of right, and continuous for the statutory period. Good-faith mistaken-boundary use by successive possessors permits tacking, and seasonal use consistent with the property's nature satisfies continuity.
Force may be used to effect reentry on land when the actor believes the person against whom force is used has no claim of right and the circumstances are of such urgency that postponing entry until a court order would cause exceptional hardship.
Deadly force is unavailable when the actor knows he can avoid the necessity of using it with complete safety by retreating, surrendering possession to a person asserting a claim of right, or complying with a demand to abstain from an act he has no duty to take.
…supports the proposition for which our forebears fought and many died, namely, that to be fully conformable to the principle of right, the form of government must be representative. That is the keystone upon which our government was founded and lacking which no republic can survive. It is well for this Court to practice…