Per Se
Literal meaning: “By itself; in itself; intrinsically”
What does the Latin term "Per Se" mean in law?
Per se denotes that something is inherently or automatically so, without the need for additional proof or analysis. In antitrust law, certain categories of conduct, such as horizontal price-fixing, are treated as per se violations of the Sherman Act, meaning they are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable restraints of trade without any examination of their actual competitive effects. In defamation law, certain categories of statements, such as accusations of criminal conduct, are actionable per se, meaning the plaintiff need not prove special damages. Per se rules stand in contrast to rule of reason analysis, which requires a case-by-case examination. The per se approach creates legal bright lines that promote predictability and judicial efficiency.
Source: General · Legal Latin
Legal Definition
Per se denotes that something is inherently or automatically so, without the need for additional proof or analysis. In antitrust law, certain categories of conduct, such as horizontal price-fixing, are treated as per se violations of the Sherman Act, meaning they are conclusively presumed to be unreasonable restraints of trade without any examination of their actual competitive effects. In defamation law, certain categories of statements, such as accusations of criminal conduct, are actionable per se, meaning the plaintiff need not prove special damages. Per se rules stand in contrast to rule of reason analysis, which requires a case-by-case examination. The per se approach creates legal bright lines that promote predictability and judicial efficiency.
How It's Used
Courts apply per se rules to create categorical prohibitions or presumptions that eliminate the need for case-by-case analysis. In antitrust, the per se rule condemns certain agreements without inquiry into actual market effects, while in tort law, per se defamation relieves the plaintiff of proving actual damages.
Example Sentences
The court held that the competitors' agreement to fix prices was a per se violation of the Sherman Act, requiring no further inquiry into market conditions or competitive effects.
The statement that the plaintiff had embezzled funds from her employer was defamatory per se because it imputed the commission of a crime.
Violation of the building code constituted negligence per se, establishing the defendant's breach of duty without further evidence of unreasonable conduct.