A fact or consideration that does not affect the legal rights, duties, or outcome of a dispute.
See Our Sources· 6 primary sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Pleading Allegation Struck
Imani Idowu sued Island Manufacturing for breach of contract and included a paragraph alleging the CEO once made an offensive remark unrelated to the deal. The court granted the motion to strike that paragraph because the remark had no bearing on whether a contract existed or was breached.
False Imprisonment Confinement
Ike Ingram locked the door to a room containing Israel Irving, then removed the only key from the building. The court held that the indirect nature of the confinement did not prevent liability because the method of causing the confinement carried no legal weight.
Irene Ingalls used a rolled newspaper to strike an attacker she reasonably believed threatened serious injury. When the blow unexpectedly caused a fatal head injury, the court ruled the unexpected severity did not remove the privilege of self-defense.
Commission Delivery Dispute
After President Adams signed judicial commissions, a clerk placed them on a desk but never delivered them before the new administration took office. The court concluded that the fate of the undelivered commissions did not determine whether the appointees held vested rights.
Marbury v. Madison5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State.
During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out.
James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.
A civil rights group paid the New York Times to publish a full-page statement criticizing police conduct. The Court held that payment for the space did not convert the statement into unprotected commercial speech.
New York Times v. Sullivan376 U.S. 254 (1964)
L. B. Sullivan is one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He has duties including supervision of the Police Department. He brought this civil libel action against the New York Times Company and four individual petitioners who were Alabama clergymen. The suit sought $500,000 in damages based on a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded Sullivan the full amount claimed against all petitioners. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment.
The advertisement was signed by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South. It described widespread non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students and an unprecedented wave of terror against them. Two paragraphs formed the basis of the claim. One alleged that after students sang on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled, truckloads of police ringed the Alabama State College Campus, and the dining hall was padlocked to starve students into submission. The other stated that Southern violators had bombed Dr. King's home, assaulted him, arrested him seven times, and charged him with perjury. The text appeared over the names of 64 persons. It was endorsed by the individual petitioners among others.
Sullivan contended that the references to police referred to him in his supervisory capacity. Six Montgomery residents testified that they read the statements as referring to him. However, several statements were inaccurate. The students sang the National Anthem rather than "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." The expulsions were for a different incident. The dining hall was not padlocked. Dr. King had been arrested only four times. The bombings occurred before Sullivan's tenure with police efforts to apprehend the perpetrators.
The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800. It acted upon an order from a New York advertising agency. The agency provided a letter from A. Philip Randolph certifying authorization. The Times made no efforts to confirm its accuracy against its own news files.
Sullivan served written demands for retraction on the petitioners pursuant to Alabama law. None of the individual petitioners responded as they had not authorized use of their names. The Times did not retract. It published a retraction only upon demand by Governor John Patterson after learning more facts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the separate petitions of the individual petitioners and the Times due to the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
A physician provided lethal medication to a terminally ill patient who requested it. The Court ruled that the patient's consent did not shield the physician from criminal liability under state law prohibiting assistance in suicide.
Washington v. Glucksberg521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Washington has prohibited assisting suicide since its territorial days. In 1854, the first Territorial Legislature outlawed assisting another in the commission of self-murder. The current statute, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.060, provides that a person is guilty of promoting a suicide attempt when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide, and classifies it as a class C felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Washington's Natural Death Act, enacted in 1979, states that the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment at a patient's direction shall not constitute a suicide, but the state has consistently rejected efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide, including a 1991 ballot initiative defeated by voters.
The respondents in this case are four physicians who practice in Washington and treat terminally ill patients, three terminally ill patients who sought to end their lives with physician assistance and have since died, and Compassion in Dying, a nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician-assisted suicide. The physicians declared that they would assist their patients in ending their lives if not for the assisted-suicide ban. Petitioners are the State of Washington and its Attorney General.
In January 1994, the respondents filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. They sought a declaration that Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.060 is unconstitutional on its face and an injunction against its enforcement. The District Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, but the full court sitting en banc reversed the panel and affirmed the District Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
When may a court strike language from a pleading as immaterial?
A court may strike any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading on its own initiative or on a party's timely motion.
Supporting sources
Does the method of causing confinement affect false-imprisonment liability?
Liability exists whenever an intentional act is the legal cause of confinement, regardless of whether the act produces the confinement directly or indirectly.
Supporting sources
Does unexpected serious injury from defensive force defeat the privilege?
The privilege of self-defense turns on the harm the actor intends or reasonably expects to cause, not on harm that unexpectedly results.
Supporting sources
Is title to collateral relevant under Article 9?
Article 9 rights and obligations apply whether title to the collateral rests in the secured party or the debtor.
Supporting sources
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
…The court opined he was not bound to say what had become of them; if they never came to Mr. Madison's possession, it was immaterial to the present cause what had been done with them by others. To the other questions he answered that he had seen commissions of justices of the peace of the District of Columbia signed by…