Also known as: de facto · ipso facto
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A Latin term meaning in or by the fact. It appears in established legal phrases such as de facto and ipso facto to denote something that exists or occurs as a matter of actual fact rather than by formal legal recognition.
State officials enacted a statute declaring that only state-issued notes could satisfy private debts. A merchant refused payment in federal currency and invoked the constitutional bar. The court held the statute invalid because it attempted to make something other than gold and silver coin a legal tender after the fact of the underlying contracts.
An adult who had raised a child for nine years filed a parentage action after the child turned eighteen. The court dismissed the petition because the claimant had not commenced the proceeding while the child remained under the statutory age limit.
A legislature passed a statute extending the limitations period for an offense after the original period had already expired. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. The court granted the motion because the new law retroactively altered the legal consequences attached to conduct completed years earlier.
Congress enacted a criminal statute that punished conduct occurring before its passage. A defendant charged under the new law sought dismissal. The court ruled the prosecution could not proceed because the statute imposed punishment for acts completed before the law existed.
Prosecutors charged a juvenile with an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult. The trial court applied a preponderance standard. The reviewing court reversed because due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the offense.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseA nonresident was served with process while briefly present in the forum state on unrelated business. The defendant moved to quash service. The court upheld jurisdiction because physical presence at the time of service supplies the requisite authority to render a personal judgment.
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home. In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey. In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.
View caseIt denotes something occurring or existing as a matter of actual fact. The term supplies the factual component in expressions such as de facto parent and ex post facto law.
…to a suit for its collection. Historically the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on their de facto power over the defendant’s person. Hence his presence within the territorial jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him. Pennoyer v.…