Also known as: but-for · but for · but-for causation · but for test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A causal test under which an act or condition qualifies as the cause of a result when the result would not have occurred in its absence.
Bobby Brady suffered from severe schizophrenia that produced persistent delusions about government surveillance. Acting on those delusions, he released livestock onto a highway, causing a motorist to crash. Medical evidence established that the delusions supplied the sole motivation for the release. The court acquitted Bobby because the offense would not have occurred but for his mental disease.
Brenda Booth sued the wrong corporate defendant within the limitations period. After learning the correct identity, she amended the complaint to name Blackwood Technologies. Blackwood knew within the Rule 4(m) period that the suit would have targeted it but for the misnomer. The amendment therefore related back.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Bella Barnes skipped a required stability test on a drug batch, allowing degradation that later interacted fatally with a patient's condition. Without the skipped test the drug would have remained stable. The skipped test therefore supplied but-for causation for the death.
Bradley Banks contributed heavily to a judicial candidate's campaign. The contribution secured consideration for a lucrative government legal engagement. The engagement would not have been offered but for the contribution, violating the prohibition on such conditioned gifts.
Bethany Boyd traveled to the vicinity of the intended arson and assembled materials nearby. She had not yet ignited the fire when police interrupted. The preparatory acts remained too remote because the crime would not have been completed but for the interruption.
Brighton Manufacturing acquired assets from a predecessor and filed a financing statement that would have been ineffective but for the application of section 9-508. A competing secured party had perfected by another method. The competing interest therefore held priority.
Under the Durham rule a defendant receives an acquittal when the charged offense resulted from a mental disease or defect. The offense qualifies as the product of the condition when the defendant would not have committed the crime but for that mental disease or defect.
Supporting sources
Relation back requires that the new party knew or should have known the action would have been brought against it but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity. The test focuses on the new party's knowledge within the Rule 4(m) period.
Supporting sources
Conduct is the cause of a result when it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. Additional causal requirements imposed by the offense definition must also be satisfied.
Supporting sources
A security interest perfected solely by a financing statement that would be ineffective but for sections 9-316(i)(1) or 9-508 is subordinate to an interest perfected by another method. The but-not-for inquiry identifies the defective filing that triggers subordination.
Supporting sources