The court noted that the lawsuit “appeals. of all the facts that support the conclusion that the physician or plaintiff read and relied on the defendant`s express guarantees and that the flawed argument was not corrected by the plaintiff`s conclusive assertion that it would be “counterintuitive” to assume that she was wrong in her “information and beliefs”. The court concluded that “since the plaintiff`s assertion that [the physician] received and relied on the documents in question” was not “accompanied by a statement of the facts on which the belief was based,” the express warranty claim was not legally denied. Id. at *13-14 (internal punctuation and citations omitted). The plaintiff requested that the action be varied to provide additional facts in support of his allegations. The court said that after the Second Circuit precedent, a change “was not warranted. In the absence of any indication of what a claimant might add to his or her complaint in order to make it viable,” and that applicant “had not indicated what new information he would include” if it could be amended. Id. to *15 (internal punctuation and citations omitted). Nevertheless, the court allowed the applicant to file an application for leave to amend, with the request to add a memorandum of law containing a statement explaining how the amended application would survive a similar application for dismissal.
Only a few dictionaries contain the word “conclusive”, those that have only recently adopted it, and the small number of dictionary definitions available seem to have difficulty grasping the use of this word in the legal world. This article explores this definitional confusion with original research and data on the historical use of the word and its lexicographical coverage. Since the word “consistency” using the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the demand for meaning associated with the word is increasingly accepted in the legal profession. I won`t read the entire plea to understand the context, but in the quoted passage, the oddity is that the author uses “the assurance of information and belief” for an overall conclusion rather than a more specific factual assertion that more closely resembles the problem the court is focusing on. If the final statement had been supported by more specific statements such as “Information and faith, the Suchandsuch County Electoral Board counted several hundred, and perhaps more than a thousand, absentee ballots sent out after Election Day,” this might not have been such a big problem – at least to avoid dismissal. For the purposes of obtaining an emergency order, this would still be an issue, as the question would then shift from “whether the specific factual allegations in your plea, if ultimately supported by evidence at trial, entitle you to win in court” to “Do you currently have enough evidence in hand to qualify for some sort of immediate exoneration now? “which is another topic.” Ouster” also seems normal to me (born in 1950 in New York).
But the OED suggests that it began as an Anglo-French legal term (meaning illegal expulsion and the like), but acquired a more general meaning in AmE, but not so much in BrE. The appendix to the qualifier “on information and faith” to an allegation of a complaint is used for technical reasons. Would “repression” be what we would call “repression” in British English? The term is often used in legal briefs, affidavits and affidavits under oath.  It is often used in a sentence similar to “The applicant is informed, believes and affirms on the basis of this information and beliefs.”  This “protects the author of the statement from allegations of lying or perjury.”  A standard sentence added to qualify an affidavit made; A sentence that indicates that a statement is not made first-hand, but nevertheless in the firm belief that it is true. Bibas J.A.`s view seems to confuse for this commercial litigant the obligation to assert certain facts (this follows from two Supreme Court decisions he cited, Twombly and Iqbal) with the obligation to have proof of such facts (this follows from section 11 of the Regulations). A “conclusive” claim is usually not specific enough for the Twombly/Iqbal standard. “On information and belief” refers to the evidence that supports an allegation. You can invoke certain facts based on “information and beliefs,” and there`s nothing wrong with that. Judge Bibas` concern appears to be the lack of sufficient precision, not the evidence behind the allegations. He takes the use of the phrase “on information and beliefs” attached to conclusive allegations to suggest that lawyers had neither sufficient evidence nor information to make more specific allegations.
Sed non elit aliquam, tempor nisl vitae, euismod quam. Nulla et lacus lectus. Nunc sed tincidunt arcu. Nam maximus luctus nunc, in ullamcorper turpis luctus ac. Morbi a leo ut metus mollis facilisis. Integer feugiat dictum dolor id egestas. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus.