Also known as: two pronged test · two-prong test · two prong test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A legal analysis requiring satisfaction of two distinct criteria before a court reaches a specified conclusion.
Thomas Thompson formed Trailblazer Airlines with minimal capital and deposited all ticket revenue into his personal account while paying both business and personal expenses from the same funds. He held no board meetings and kept no corporate records. When a supplier sued for unpaid services, the court examined whether the airline was Thompson's alter ego and whether respecting the corporate form would promote injustice.
Tabitha Taylor purchased a vehicle from General Motors that rolled over during normal use. She alleged the roof structure failed to protect occupants. The court applied a two-criteria analysis to decide whether the design performed below ordinary consumer expectations or whether the risks of the chosen design outweighed its benefits.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Theresa Tucker and Tyler Taylor agreed to sell what they believed were stolen goods to undercover officers. The government charged conspiracy. The court examined whether the defendants needed to know the factual circumstances making the conduct criminal or only that they intended the acts themselves.
Travis Tate received an anonymous letter describing drug activity at a residence and corroborated some details through surveillance. Officers sought a search warrant. The court weighed all circumstances surrounding the tip rather than requiring separate proof of the informant's basis of knowledge and veracity.
Tara Tran was convicted after her lawyer failed to investigate mitigating evidence for sentencing. She petitioned for relief. The court first asked whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and then whether the deficient performance created a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
Threshold Capital sued Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. after a worker suffered injury from a tool whose guard allegedly provided inadequate protection. The court assessed whether the tool met consumer expectations for safety and whether the design's risks outweighed its utility under the relevant factors.
The plaintiff must prove both that the corporation was the shareholder's alter ego with unity of interest and that respecting the corporate form would sanction fraud or promote injustice. Undercapitalization combined with failure to observe formalities can satisfy the first prong when the entity functions merely as a liability shield.
Supporting sources
Gates replaced the rigid Aguilar-Spinelli requirement that each prong of veracity and basis of knowledge be independently satisfied with a totality-of-the-circumstances approach. The factors remain relevant but need not each be proven in isolation.
Supporting sources
A defendant must show both that counsel's performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense by creating a reasonable probability of a different result.
Supporting sources
A product may be defective if it fails either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. The plaintiff need not satisfy both prongs. Meeting one is sufficient.
Supporting sources
…Concurring opinions Concurring in part and dissenting in part — Justice Brennan Justice Brennan agreed that the two-prong test was appropriate but disagreed with the majority's application of the prejudice prong in capital cases. He would require a somewhat different showing of prejudice in the capital sentencing…