We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
In Favorabilibus Magis Attenditur Quod Prodest Quam Quod Nocet
Understanding In Favorabilibus Magis Attenditur Quod Prodest Quam Quod Nocet in Legal Terms
Definition & Meaning
The phrase "in favorabilibus magis attenditur quod prodest quam quod nocet" translates to "in matters that are favored, what is beneficial is given more attention than what is harmful." This legal maxim emphasizes that when interpreting laws or regulations, the focus should be on the positive outcomes rather than the negative implications. It reflects a principle of favoring actions or interpretations that promote good over those that may cause harm.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
This maxim is often referenced in various areas of law, including civil and family law. It is particularly relevant in cases where the intent of the law is to protect or benefit individuals, such as in child custody or welfare cases. Legal practitioners may use this principle to argue for interpretations that favor the well-being of individuals, particularly in situations where the law could be applied in a way that might cause harm. Users can often find relevant legal forms through US Legal Forms that align with this principle.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
1. In a child custody case, a judge may prioritize the child's best interests by favoring arrangements that promote stability and emotional well-being over those that might be technically correct but harmful.
2. In a contract dispute, if a clause can be interpreted in multiple ways, the court may choose the interpretation that benefits the party that is disadvantaged, rather than the one that imposes penalties (hypothetical example).
State-by-state differences
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
State
Application of the Maxim
California
Emphasizes child welfare in custody decisions.
Texas
Focus on beneficial outcomes in family law.
New York
Prioritizes interpretations that serve public interest.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Key Difference
In Favorabilibus
In favor of beneficial outcomes.
More general than the specific maxim.
Harm Principle
Focuses on preventing harm.
Contrasts with prioritizing benefits.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you find yourself in a legal situation where this maxim is relevant, consider the following steps:
Gather evidence that highlights the beneficial aspects of your case.
Consult with a legal professional to understand how this principle may apply to your situation.
Explore US Legal Forms for templates that can assist you in presenting your case effectively.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.