Also known as: per se rule · per se
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A categorical rule that applies automatically upon proof of specified facts without requiring additional proof, balancing, or case-specific inquiry.
Pierre Poulin publishes a statement about Pierce Patterson that does not fall into any recognized category of slander actionable without proof of harm. The statement nevertheless causes Patterson to lose a major contract. Patterson recovers damages because the publication is the legal cause of special harm even though the slander is not actionable per se.
Perry Pratt buys land intending to build homes. A new regulation bars all development and leaves the parcel with no economically beneficial use. The regulation constitutes a per se taking requiring just compensation because it deprives Pratt of all productive use.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pavel Petrov publishes a written statement defaming Pamela Phillips. Phillips proves no actual harm but recovers nominal damages because the publication is a libel for which liability arises automatically.
Phuong Pham owns waterfront property and plans immediate construction. The city imposes an eighteen-month moratorium while it studies land-use rules. The moratorium is not automatically a per se taking because courts must weigh duration, planning purpose, and impact on value before requiring compensation.
Pacific Bank publishes a defamatory statement about Paragon Construction. The statement causes Paragon to lose a financing commitment. Paragon recovers the resulting special harm because the publication is a libel for which the publisher is liable for all legally caused harm.
Prime Logistics retains one office of Pulse Media to defend a contract action while another office of the same firm sues Prime on behalf of a competitor in an unrelated matter. The simultaneous representation creates a per se conflict requiring withdrawal or informed consent from both clients.
Liability arises when the publication is the legal cause of special harm to the person defamed.
Supporting sources
No. Courts must examine duration, government planning purpose, owner expectations, and effects on value to decide whether compensation is required.
Supporting sources
The publisher is liable for at least nominal damages and for any special harm legally caused by the publication.
Supporting sources
The direct adversity creates a presumptively improper conflict even when the matters are unrelated and handled by different offices, absent 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 ,…