Also known as: two step test · two-step tests · two step tests · two-part test · two-step analysis
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A structured method of legal analysis that proceeds through two sequential inquiries, with the second inquiry reached only after the first is satisfied.
Tabitha Taylor placed shredded financial records in bins at the curb for municipal pickup. Officers collected the bins without a warrant and found evidence of fraud. The court first asked whether Taylor exhibited a subjective expectation that the contents would remain private. Finding none that society would recognize as reasonable, the court held that no search occurred under the Fourth Amendment.
Timothy Tang filed a derivative action against Talon Security directors for usurping a corporate opportunity. The board formed a special litigation committee that recommended dismissal. The court first examined the committee's independence and the reasonableness of its investigation. Satisfied on that point, the court then applied its own business judgment to decide whether dismissal served the corporation's best interests.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tristan Thompson sought to register a mark that some found offensive. The PTO refused registration on disparagement grounds. The court first determined whether the mark constituted private speech. Finding that it did, the court then applied strict scrutiny and held the refusal unconstitutional.
Tonya Takahashi was charged with murder and claimed self-defense. State law placed the burden of proving self-defense on the defendant. The court first asked whether the defense negated an element of the crime. Finding that it did not, the court upheld the burden allocation against due process challenge.
Tanner Thompson sued Hertz Corp. in California state court. Hertz sought removal on diversity grounds, claiming its nerve center was in New Jersey. The court first identified the corporation's principal place of business by locating its actual center of direction and control. It then compared citizenship of the parties and dismissed the case for lack of diversity.
Tiana Tan challenged a merger agreement containing voting agreements and a Section 251(c) provision. The board had locked up the deal to prevent competing bids. The court first examined whether the defensive measures were preclusive or coercive. Finding they were, the court then applied enhanced scrutiny to determine whether the board had acted reasonably to maximize shareholder value.
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the special litigation committee lacked independence or failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. Once that showing is made, the court proceeds to the second step and applies its own business judgment.
Supporting sources
The first step asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave. The second step asks whether the circumstances presented the same inherently coercive pressures as station-house questioning, even if the person is already incarcerated.
Supporting sources
Once the responding party shows that the sources are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, the requesting party must demonstrate good cause for production, considering proportionality factors.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must first show unity of interest and ownership so that separate personalities no longer exist. The plaintiff must then show that respecting the entity would sanction fraud or promote injustice.
Supporting sources
…the Court of Appeals concluded that the information provided by the informant was inadequate under both prongs of the two-part test established in Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States , 393 U. S. 410 (1969).[^maj-5] The officers' independent investigation neither cured the staleness…