Also known as: imminent harms · imminent danger · imminence of harm
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A danger or threat of injury that is immediate and about to occur without significant delay. The concept requires that the harm be poised to materialize at once rather than at some indefinite future time.
State officials learned that an armed force from a neighboring country had crossed the border and was advancing toward the capital with no diplomatic resolution in sight. The governor ordered state troops to engage the invaders before seeking congressional approval. The action was upheld because the state faced an immediate threat that left no time for delay.
A delivery driver for a trucking company became trapped inside a damaged trailer after a load shift pinned his leg. Supervisors at the terminal knew of the entrapment yet took no steps to free him or summon help for several hours. The company faced liability for failing to act when the driver was in immediate peril of serious injury.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A homeless man slept in a city park after shelters turned him away and temperatures dropped below freezing. Police cited him under an anti-camping ordinance. He defended on the ground that he had no lawful alternative to avoid the immediate risk of severe cold injury.
State education officials required students to salute the flag each morning or face expulsion. Parents challenged the rule as violating free speech. The Court rejected any claim that the requirement was justified by an immediate national emergency requiring uniform patriotic displays.
A passenger on a crowded train shot four youths who had surrounded him and demanded money. One youth had displayed a screwdriver. The defendant argued that the youths' actions created an immediate threat of deadly force that justified his response.
A state statute required that any profits from a criminal's published account of his crimes be placed in a fund for victims. The publisher argued that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on speech without showing any immediate harm to victims that justified the restriction.
Assault requires apprehension of contact that will occur without significant delay. A threat of harm at some later unspecified time does not satisfy the element because it fails to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear of immediate injury.
Supporting sources
A state may engage in war without consent only when actually invaded or when facing danger so immediate that delay for congressional approval is impossible. Remote or speculative threats do not qualify.
Supporting sources
Yes when the threatened contact would follow immediately if the condition is not met. The victim must reasonably apprehend that harmful contact is about to occur unless compliance is instantaneous.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended to cause apprehension of imminent harmful contact and that the plaintiff actually experienced reasonable apprehension of such contact at the time of the act.
Supporting sources
…case of how much pressure on the suspect was permissible.[^maj-4] Among the criteria often taken into account were threats or imminent danger, e. g. , Payne v. Arkansas , 356 U. S. 560, physical deprivations such as lack of sleep or food, e. g. , Reck v. Pate , 367 U. S. 433, repeated or extended interrogation, e. g. ,…