De Minimis Doctrine

A stance of ancient common law, ‘de minimis non curat lex’—which in Latin means ‘the law does not concern itself with trifles’; the ‘de minimis’ doctrine seeks to avoid overburdening the legal system with lawsuits of little merit, and allows sanctions against parties who try to bring frivolous actions into court
References in periodicals archive ?
subject to regulation" under the de minimis doctrine.
application of the de minimis doctrine in this context, EPA must
results, and de minimis doctrines do not provide sufficient legal
necessity, absurd results, or de minimis doctrines sufficiently justify
absurd results, and de minimis doctrines may support a permanent
In this sense, the rule which is considered purely sporting might not have the effect on economic freedoms of athletes or clubs guaranteed to them under Articles 39, 43 and 49 but it might have such effect on the guarantees related to undistorted competition under Articles 81 and 82; purely internal situation are outside of the scope of internal market rules but may not be outside competition rules; internal market rules are addressed to states and competition rules to undertakings, de minimis doctrine is applicable only in relation to competition, etc.
This core constitutional principle as reflected in the de minimis doctrine would remove the agreement or decision from the scope of the Community competence in relation to competition provisions.
16) However, because the time spent donning and doffing the nonunique gear was negligible, the court applied the well-established de minimis doctrine (17) and held that the employer was not required to compensate the employees for that time.
Indeed, the Supreme Court merely cited the Ninth Circuit's rejection of the district court's position and subsequent incorporation of the de minimis doctrine without explicitly passing judgment on this discrete issue.
Assuming the Supreme Court did adopt the Ninth Circuit's entire holding, that lower court's use of the de minimis doctrine to preclude compensation for the negligible time spent donning and doffing nonunique protective gear appears to be inconsistent with other language in Court's decision.
906, 913 (2000) (stating that in applying the de minimis doctrine, the FLRA looks to the nature and extent of the effect or the reasonably foreseeable effect, of the change on bargaining unit employees' conditions of employment).
62) The de minimis doctrine is a relevant consideration along with a fair use defense.