Also known as: by itself
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin phrase indicating that a legal conclusion follows from the thing itself without reference to additional facts or proof.
Prosperity Investments sues Parker Phillips in State MM over a contract formed in State LL. Phillips owns vacant land in MM but the claim has no connection to it. The court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction because the land's mere presence supplies no minimum contacts per se.
Prime Logistics loses a contract suit and a judgment is entered against the limited partnership. Patrick Phan is the general partner. The creditor cannot reach Phan's personal assets because the partnership judgment alone creates no per se liability against him.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pioneer Energy is held liable on a supplier contract. Paula Pierce is a partner but not named in the suit. The supplier cannot execute against Pierce's personal bank account because the partnership judgment supplies no per se basis for individual liability.
Piper Patel publishes a false oral statement accusing Priya Prasad of a crime. The statement is slander actionable per se. Prasad recovers nominal damages even though she proves no actual reputational harm.
Pacific Bank owns shoreline parcels. A temporary development moratorium blocks all use for thirty-two months. The bank claims a per se taking. The court rejects the claim and requires examination of duration, planning purpose, and investment expectations.
Pierre Poulin assigns his limited-partnership interest to an outsider. The assignment alone produces no per se dissociation or dissolution of the partnership. Poulin remains a partner until an additional event triggers dissociation.
No. The phrase indicates that the legal conclusion follows from the conduct or status itself without further factual showing.
The presence of a defendant's property in the forum does not by itself establish minimum contacts when the dispute is unrelated to that property.
No. A judgment against the partnership is not by itself a judgment against any partner and cannot be satisfied from a partner's assets absent a separate judgment against that partner.
No. Courts examine duration, government planning purpose, owner expectations, and value effects rather than treating the moratorium as a categorical taking.
No. The assignment does not by itself cause dissociation or dissolution of the partnership.
…trial judge submitted the case to the jury under instructions that the statements in the advertisement were "libelous per se" and were not privileged, so that petitioners might be held liable if the jury found that they had published the advertisement and that the statements were made "of and concerning"…