Making an assumption arguendo allow an attorney to pursue arguments in the alternative without admitting even the slightest possibility that those assumptions could be true. Often, these assumptions would be that the facts or legal arguments endorsed by a hostile party were true. Thus, an attorney may say, for example, that "assuming, arguendo, that my client stole the car, it would be clear that my client would have been justified in doing so in order to save a life." If the client would be shielded from legal consequences as a result even if he or she had committed the crime, this form of argument allows an attorney to suggest that it would be pointless to pursue the matter of whether the client committed the crime, as it would lead to the same legal consequences regardless of which set of facts was assumed to be true.
Similarly, particularly in an appellate court, a judge may ask an attorney what the effects of a different set of assumptions, made arguendo, about the facts governing a situation might be. This is especially useful in exploring whether different fact patterns might limit the proper scope of a possible holding in a given case.
Substantive due process, plenary-power doctrine, and minimum contacts: arguments for overcoming the obstacle of asserting personal jurisdiction over terrorists under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Nov 01, 2006; ABSTRACT: Congress enacted the Anti-Terrorism Act to create a federal cause of action for torts arising out of acts of...