Also known as: per se grounds · per se
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for legal liability or a specific consequence that arises automatically from the occurrence of designated facts or conduct without the need to prove additional elements such as special harm or gross excessiveness.
Pavel Petrov published a statement about Portia Price that did not fall within any recognized category of slander actionable per se. The statement nevertheless caused Price to lose a specific business contract. Price recovers damages because the publication was the legal cause of her proven special harm.
Philip Powell owned coastal land whose only economically beneficial use was blocked by a new state regulation. The regulation left Powell with no productive use of the parcel. The court treats the regulation as a per se taking requiring just compensation because it functions like a physical appropriation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Priscilla Parks published a written statement that harmed Pierce Patterson's reputation. Patterson proved no actual damages. Patterson still recovers nominal damages because the publication was a libel for which the law awards at least nominal relief.
Paige Porter's building permit was suspended for eighteen months while the city completed a land-use plan. The moratorium prevented all economic use during that period. The court declines to treat the moratorium as a per se taking and instead weighs duration, planning purpose, and Porter's expectations to decide whether compensation is required.
Pinnacle Holdings published a spoken statement about Prism Analytics that was actionable per se. The statement also caused Prism to lose a particular customer contract. Prism recovers both nominal damages and the proven special harm caused by the publication.
Phoenix Technologies retained Precision Tools to handle one corporate matter while Precision simultaneously sued Phoenix in an unrelated proceeding handled by a different office. The direct adversity constitutes a per se conflict that is presumptively improper absent informed consent from both clients.
Certain categories of slander, such as those imputing serious sexual misconduct or adversely affecting fitness for a business or profession, are actionable per se. Liability arises automatically once the elements of publication and the defamatory character are shown.
Supporting sources
A regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use is a per se taking unless the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of nuisance or property law at the time of acquisition.
Supporting sources
The publisher is liable for at least nominal damages even without proof of actual harm. The plaintiff may also recover any special harm that is legally caused by the publication.
Supporting sources
No. Courts examine the duration of the restriction, the government's planning purposes, the owner's reasonable expectations, and the effect on value to determine whether compensation is required.
Supporting sources
A firm may not represent one client in one matter and oppose that same client in another matter even if the matters are unrelated. The direct adversity creates a per se conflict that is presumptively improper without informed consent.
Supporting sources
…confirms that the sodomy statute is directed toward homosexuals as a class. In Texas, calling a person a homosexual is slander per se because the word "homosexual" "impute[s] the commission of a crime." Plumley v. Landmark Chevrolet, Inc. , 122 F. 3d 308, 310 (CA5 1997) (applying Texas law); see also Head v. Newton ,…