Legal Definition of but-for : of or relating to the necessary cause (as a negligent act) without which a particular result (as damage) would not have occurred a but-for test of causation — …

but for (someone) except for. except for (someone or something) accompany (one) on a/ (one's) journey. accompany on a journey. a stranger to (someone or something) a dog in the manger. (one) puts (one's) pants on one leg at a time. attend to.

Synonyms for but. apart from, aside from, bar, barring, beside, besides, except. (also excepting),

Definition of BUT FOR (phrase): except for something; if something or someone had not prevented it

But for definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with pronunciation, synonyms and translation. Look it up now!

The "but for" rule is a rule of exclusion, in that the defendant's conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without it. The "but for" rule explains most cases when limited solely to the issue of causation, but it does not resolve one type of situation: if two causes concur to bring about an event, and either one of them, operating independently, would have …

But-for test. Primary tabs. The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?" Of the numerous tests used to determine causation, the but-for test is considered to be one of the weaker ones.

In criminal and tort law, the principle that causation exists only if the harm suffered by a party would not have happened in the absence of (“but for”) the defendant’s conduct. noun.

It is also known as legal cause. To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the "but for" or "sine qua non" rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant's act establishes that the particular act or …

Jun 19, 2009 · Alerts. On June 18, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that plaintiffs claiming disparate-treatment discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must prove that their age was "the reason" the employer took adverse action against them. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 08-441.