Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P52 pps

because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In addition, an employer cannot fire an employee who is exercising certain rights, such as filing a discrimination complaint with a governmental agency or filing for worker’s compensation benefits. An employee can be discharged for mis- appropriating funds, being unfaithful to his or her employer’s interest, refusing to perform services that were agreed upon in a contract, or for being habitually late or absent. An employee cannot be fired for insubordination for refusing to subscribe to unlawful directives from his or her employer, nor can the employee be required to perform such illegal tasks as committing perjury or handling stolen property. A suit for damages may be brought against an employer who wrongfully discharges an employee. An employee has the obligation to be honest and faithful in the performance of duties. When trade secrets are disclosed to an employee, he or she must not reveal them to others either prior or subsequent to employment. In some cases, an employment contract specifies that the employer owns any new ideas or inventions created by the employee during the period of employment. When this is true, the employee has no rights in the idea or invention nor any right to ask for additional compensation. Compensation An employee can enter into an agreem ent to work without compensation, but in the absence of such an agreement, an employer must pay an employee at the agreed rate. The employer cannot delay payment of wages or substitute something other than money unless the em- ployee assents. The employee is entitled to his or her wages as long as the work is completed. If an employer wrongfully discharges an employ- ee, the employee can collect all the money the employer had agreed to pay him or her. The amount and type of compensation is ordinarily regulated by agreement; however, it is affected by a number of statutes. Employers are required to pay at least a certain prescribed MINIMUM WAGE under most state laws, which must be no less than the amount set by federal law, unless it is a type of employment that is excluded under the law or the employer is small enough in size to be exempt from the minimum wage laws. Other state and federal laws mandate employers to allow for paid sick time and additional wages for overtime or holiday work. It constitutes a violation of federal law, the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 206 [1963]) to pay men and women differen t wages for substan- tially similar work. Special laws protect INFANTS (individuals under the age of majority) by restricting the hours they can work at certain ages and proscribing their employment in certain kinds of jobs. CROSS REFERENCES Child Labo r Laws; Employment at Will; Employment Law; Labor Law; Labor Union. MATERIAL Important; affecting the merits of a case; causing a particular course of action; significant; substantial. A description of the quality of evidence that possesses such substantial PROBATIVE value as to establish the truth or falsity of a point in issue in a lawsuit. A material fact is an occurrence, event, or information that is sufficiently significant to influence an individual into acting in a certain way, such as entering into a contract. In formal court procedures, a material fact is anything needed to prove one party’s case, or tending to establish a point that is crucial to a person’s position. A material issue is a question that is in dispute between two parties involved in liti- gation, and that must be answered in order for the conflict to be resolved. A material witness is a person whose testimony is a necessary element of a lawsuit. An individual who is considered a material witness can be compelled to appear in court and provide testimony. In the event that the person’s safety is endangered as a result of his or her planned or actual testimony, he or she may be given leg al protection or held in PROTECTIVE CUSTODY. MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE TEST A three-part test that determines whether an individual has received DUE PROCESS under the Constitution. The test balances (1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the proce- dures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 498 MATERIAL Decisions by the Supreme Court in the 1960s enhanced the due process rights of individuals under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amend- ments. Aggrieved individuals used these pre- cedents to litigate various issues involving the termination of employment, government bene- fits, professional licensure, and other interests involving ADMINISTRATIVE LAW matters. As a result, the Supreme Court had to sort out how much process was enough to constitute due process. The Court resolved this issue in Mathews v. Eldridge, 425 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), when it announced a three-part BALANCING test that lower courts must apply when analyzing procedural due process cases. In Mathews, the plaintiff accused the federal government of terminating his SOCIAL SECURITY disability benefits without an evidentiary hear- ing prior to termination. The claim was that the administrative procedures in place by the government violated his constitutional right to due process. The Court acknowledged that the receipt of benefits was an import ant private interest, which satisfies the first part of the test focusing on whether or not a private interest is at stake. Later court decisions have shown that this part of the test is subjective, calling on courts to make judgment calls on the relative merit of the interest at stake. The second part of the test assesses the risk of the possibility that a person will be mistakenly deprived of the interest because of the need for additional or different procedural safeguards. If the risk of error is minimal, then the need for additional procedures declines. If the risk is high then additional procedures would be merited. Government agencies also may reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation by ensuring that regula- tions are not ARBITRARY or discriminatory, and by defining reasonable classifications. In Mathews, the Court ruled that administrative procedures that were in place did not violate due proces s rights; the plaintiff was offered several methods to address the termination of benefits, but did not choose to employ them. The final part of the test deals with the government’s interest. The Mathews court, however, made it clear that in addition to interest, administrative burdens also must be factored into the analysis. If the need for enhanced due process is merited by the need to assure individuals that administrative actions are just, then administrative costs should not be considered. However, if the costs of the additional procedures outweigh the benefits, then the government should not be required to use additional resources. The courts give “substantial weight to the good-faith judgments” of officials charged with government administration. In Mathews, the Court ruled that an evidentiary hearing was not required prior to the termination of benefits and, therefore, the government’s administrative procedures did not violate his due process rights. Some commentators have criticized the three-part test as too subjective and impres- sionistic, allowing judges to impose their personal values on the relative worth of private and government interests. For example, in its ruling in Mathews the Court commented that “the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Such undefined terminology opens the door for an array of interpretations. Supporters, however, contend that the bala ncing of the three parts gives courts flexibility in assessing a particular set of facts. Nevertheless, the test continues to be applied by the Supreme Court and the lower courts. FURTHER READINGS Carnathan, Sean T. 1993. “Due Process and the Independent Medical Examiner System in the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act.” Maine Law Review 45. Mashaw, Jerry L. 1976. “The Supreme Court’s Due Process Calculus for Administrative Adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: Three Factors in Search of a Theory of Value.” Univ. of Chicago Law Review 44. Schwartz, Bernard. 1995. A History of the Supreme Court.2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. MATTER OF FACT That whi ch is to be determined by the senses or by the testimony of witnesses who describe what they have perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. Trials are highly complex forums for the consideration of fact, opinion, and law. Each area is distinct in its type and in who has responsibility for evaluating it. Courts use the term matter of fact to distinguish a particular kind of information. A fact is a thing done—an actual occurrence or event—and it is presented during a trial in the form of testimony and evidence. The RULES OF EVIDENCE generally allow witnesses to testify as to what they personally know about the facts in dispute, but do not GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION MATTER OF FACT 499 allow witnesses to testify as to their opinions (i.e., thoughts, beliefs, or infere nces) in regard to those facts. An exception is made for expert witnesses, whose technical or scientific specialty is considered sufficient to allow them to state their opinion on relevant and material matters. Facts are often difficult to ascertain because the record is unclear or because competing interpretations of the facts are presented. QUES- TIONS OF FACT are for the jury, which must weigh their validity in reaching a verdict. The jury’s role is kept distinct from that of the court, which has the authority to rule on all matters of law. CROSS REFE RENCE Matter of Law. MATTER OF LAW That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes, rules, court decisions, and interpretations of legal principles. In legal actions the term matter of law is used to define a particular area that is the responsi- bility of the court. Matter of law is distinguished from matter of fact. All questions concerning the determination of fact are for the jury, though a judge may determine the facts if a jury trial is waived or is not permitted under the law. The designation of matters of law to the judge and matters of fact to the jury did not develop, however, until the late eighteenth century. Until that time a jury could exercise its judgment over matters of fact and law. Jury instructions, which in modern law are technical and specific about which law to apply, were informal and general. A jury was free to accept the instructions, modify them, or ignore them completely. By the middle of the nineteenth century, courts had acquired authority over matters of law and confined juries to matters of fact. Commercial lawyers were particularly influen- tial in bringing about this change, as greater judicial control over matters of law helped produce a stable legal system in which business could prosper. In the early twenty-first century, courts rule on all matters of law, including pretrial motions, trial objections to the introduction of particular evidence or testimony, proposed jury instructions, and posttrial motions. Their decisions are based on statutes, RULES OF EVIDENCE and procedure, and the body of relevant case law. When the facts in a civil action are not in dispute, one or both of the parties may request a court to make a SUMMARY JUDGMENT.Summary judgment is purely a matter of law; the court accepts the relevant facts as presented by the party opposing summary judgment and renders a decision based on the applicable legal principles. A matter of law can be the basis for an appeal, but generally a matter of fact cannot. Though an appeals court can reverse a decision because of a mistaken matter of law, it will not reverse if the mistake did not affect the verdict. This “harmless error” rule developed, in part, from the recognition that during a trial the court often must make hundreds of decisions based on matters of law. MATTER OF RECORD Anything that has been entered in the formal written record of a court, which can be proved by the production of that record. A court produces a lengthy written record of a trial. A matter of record is anything entered in the official court record, including pleadings, testimony, evidence, motions, objections, rul- ings, and the verdict. Any matter of record can be proved by producing the relevant document from the trial court record. Proving matters of record is especially important in petitions for appeal. When appellate courts determine whether to hear an appeal, the existence of a matter of record can be decisive: the record can conclusively refute allegations con- tained in the petition. Thus, for example, an appeal based on something said in testimony must be supported by the record; if it is not, the court may deny the petition without any further consideration. An appellate court in most instances will not consider evidence, issues, or objections that were not made a part of the record at trial. Getting an issue into the record at trial is said to preserve the issue for appeal. In general, matters of record are available to the public unles s state law or court order prevents them from being released. For exam- ple, courts typically refuse to release the names of minors who are victims of sexual assault. Rhode Island’s family court rules of practice provide another example; matters of record “involving scandal or imm oral practices” are kept private except from the parties in interest or their representatives (R.I. R. Fam. Ct. Prac. Rule 3.3). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 500 MATTER OF LAW v MATTHEWS, STANLEY Stanley Matthews served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1881 to 1889. A longtime friend and adviser to President RUTHERFORD B. HAYES, Matthews proved an effective and hardworking member of the Court during his brief tenure. His 1859 prosecution of a reporter for aiding the escape of two fugitive slaves proved politically embarrassing in later years. However, his opinion in YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 (1886), established an enduring principle of EQUAL PROTECTION analysis under the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT . Matthews was born July 21, 1824, in Cincinnati. He preferred his middle name and dropped his first name, Thom as, in his adult life. He graduated from Kenyon College in 1840 and then studied law in Cincinnati. He was admitted to the Tennessee bar in 1842 and began a law practice in Columbia, Tennesse e. Matthews also devoted himself to journalism, editing the Tennessee Dem ocrat newspaper. He returned to Ohio in 1845 to become editor of the Cincinnati Morning Herald. Soon Matthews was drawn into politics and public service. He became clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1848, then left in 1851 to sit as judge on the court of COMMON PLEAS in Hamilton County, Ohio. He was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1855, where he served until 1857. Matthews was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Ohio in 1858 . In 1859 he prosecuted W. B. Connelly, a local reporter, under the federal FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT, for assisting two runaway slaves. Though Matthews was an abolitionist, he duly enforced the law. Critics charged him with forsaking his conscience in the hope of furthering his legal and political careers. Matthews never escaped the taint of these accusations. When the Civil War broke out, Matthews enlisted in the Twenty-third Ohio Infantry as a lieutenant colonel, under the command of Hayes, a college classmate and friend. He left the army in 1863, following his election as a judge of the Cincinnati Superior Court. He held that post until 1865, when he resumed his private law practice. Matthews aided his friend Hayes in the 1876 presidential election, against SAMUEL J. TILDEN,the Stanley Matthews 1824–1889 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18251825 19001900 18751875 1850 1850 ❖ ◆◆ 1858 Appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio 1824 Born, Cincinnati, Ohio 1851–53 Served as judge on court of common pleas in Hamilton County, Ohio 1842 Admitted to Tennessee bar 1845 Became editor of Cincinnati Morning Herald 1855–57 Served in Ohio Senate 1863–65 Served as judge of the Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati 1859 Prosecuted W.B. Connelly under the Fugitive Slave Act for assisting two runaway slaves 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1877–81 Served in U.S. Senate 1881–89 Served as associate justice of the Supreme Court ◆ ◆ 1861–63 Served in the Ohio Infantry 1884 Authored Hurtado v. California opinion 1886 Authored Yick Wo v. Hopkins opinion 1889 Died, Washington, D.C. ❖ ◆ ◆ Stanley Matthews. PHOTOGRAPH BY MATHEW BRADY. COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION MATTHEWS, STANLEY 501 Democratic governor of New York. An electoral commission was formed by Congress in early 1877 to resolve disputes over the electoral votes in several states. Matthews represented Hayes and the REPUBLICAN PART Y , successfully arguing that Hayes should be awarded all the disputed votes and thus become president. Matthews was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1877. In 1880 Hayes nominated him to the Supreme Court. The Senate rejected his nomi- nation, in part because of his 1859 prosecution of Connelly under the fugitive slave law and also because he had represented railroads and corporations in his law practice. Some senators argued that this would affect Matthews’s judgment in cases on these issues. In 1881 President JAMES GARFIELD nominated Matthews to the Court. This time he was confirmed by one vote. During his nearly eight years on the Court, Matthews authored 232 opinions and five dissents. In HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S. Ct. 111, 28 L. Ed. 232 (1884), Matthews rejected the idea that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ DUE PROCESS provisions required states to prosecute citizens solely through the GRAND JURY indictment process. Matthews wrote that as long as the defendant had notice and an opportunity to prepare a defense to the charges, due process was provided. Matthews is most famous for his opinion in Yick Wo. In this opinion Matthews invalidated a San Francisco ordinance requiring owners of laundries housed in wooden buildings to obtain permission from the city government to con- tinue the operation of their business. Although the language of the ordinance was neutral, it was administered in such a way that Chinese laundry owners were denied licenses and nearly all non-Chinese applicants were granted licenses. Matthews looked past the neutral language to strike down the ordinance as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, concluding that unequal application of the ordinance furthered “unjust and illegal discrimination.” Matthews’s opinion became the foundation for modern civil rights cases involving DISPARATE IMPACT, in which discrimination is established by statistical in- equality rather than through proof of intentional discrimination. Matthews died March 22, 1889, in Washing- ton, D.C. MAXIM A broad statement of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident. A rule of EQUITY, the system of justice that complements the COMMON LAW. Maxims were originally quoted in Latin, and many of the Latin phrases continue to be familiar to lawyers in the early 2000s. The maxims were not written down in an organized code or enacted by legislatures, but they have been handed down through generations of judges. As a result, the wording of a maxim may vary from case to case. For example, it is a general rule that equit y does not aid a party at fault. This maxim has been variously expressed: n No one is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when that aid has become necessary through his or her own fault. n Equity does not relieve a person of the consequences of his or her own carelessness. n A court of equity will not assist a person in extricating himself or herself from the circumstances that he or she has created. n Equity will not grant relief from a self- created hardship. The principles of equity and justice are universal in the common-law courts of the world. They are flexible principles aimed at achieving justice for both sides in each case. No maxim is ever absolute, but all of the principles must be weighed and fitted to the facts of an individual controversy. A rule does not apply when it would produce an unfair result. A party cannot insist that a strict technicality be enforced in his or her favor when it would create an injustice because equity will instead balance the interests of the different parties and the convenience of the public. The Foundations of Equity Two maxims form the primary foundations of equity: Equity will not suffer an injustice and equity acts in personam. The first of these explains the whole purpose of equity, and the second highlights the personal nature of equity. Equity looks at the circumstances of the individuals in each case and fashions a remedy that is directed at the person of the defendant who must act accordingly to provide the plaintiff with the specified relief. Unless a statute expands the powers of an equity court, it can make decrees that concern property only indirectly, phrasing them as decrees against THE EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS , INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO PURSUE A PROFESSION OR TRADE [MUST] NOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY GOVERNMENTAL POWER . —STANLEY MATTHEWS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 502 MAXIM persons. It is said that these are the oldest two maxims of equity. All others are consistent with them. “He Who Seeks Equity Must do Equity.” This maxim is not a moral persuasion but an enforceable RULE OF LAW. It does not require every plaintiff to have an unblemished back- ground in order to prevail, but the court will refuse to assist anyone whose CAUSE OF ACTION is founded on his or her own misconduct toward the other party. If, for example, a wealthy woman tricks her intended spouse into signing a prenuptial agreement giving him a token $500 should they DIVORCE and after marriage she engages in a consistent pattern of conduct leading to a divorce, a court could refuse to enforce the agreement. This maxim reflects one aspect of the principle known as the clean hands doctrine. “He Who Comes into Equity Must Come with Clean Hands.” This maxim bars relief for anyone guilty of improper conduct in the matter at hand. It operates to prevent any affirmative recovery for the person with “unclean hands,” no matter how unfairly the person’s adversary has treated him or her. The maxim is the basis of the clean hands doctrine. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court. It does not disapprove only of illegal acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that, as a matter of public policy, ought to be discouraged. A court will ask whether the bad conduct was intentional. This rule is not meant to punish carelessness or a mistake. It is possible that the wrongful conduct is not an act but a failure to act. For example, someone who hires an agent to represent him or her and then sits silently while the agent misleads ano ther party in negotiations is as much responsible for the false statements as if he himself or she herself had made them. The bad conduct that is condemned by the clean hands doctrine must be a part of the transaction that is the subject of the lawsuit. It is not necessary that it actually have hurt the other party. For example, equity will not relieve a plaintiff who was also trying to evade taxes or defraud creditors with a business deal, even if that person was che ated by the other party in the transaction. Equity will always decline relief in cases in which both parties have schemed to circumvent the law. In one ve ry old case, a robber filed a bill in equity to force his partner to account for a sum of money. When the real natur e of the claim was discovered, the bill was dismissed with costs, and the lawyers were held in CONTEMPT of court for bringing such an action. This famous case has come to be called The Highwayman (Everet v. Williams, Ex. 1725, 9 L.Q. Rev. 197), and judges have been saying ever since that they will not sit to take an account between two robbers. “Equity Aids the Vigilant, not Those Who Slumber on Their Rights.” This principle recognizes that an adversary can lose evidenc e, witnesses, and a fair chance to defend himself or herself after the passage of time from the date that the wrong was committed. If the defendant can show dis- advantages because for a long time he or she relied on the fact that no lawsuit would be started, then the case should be dismissed in the interests of justice. The law encourages a speedy resolution for every dispute. It does not favor the cause of someone who suddenly wakes up to enforce his or her rights long after discovering that they exist. A long unreasonable delay such as this is called LACHES, and it is a defense to various forms of equitable relief. “Equity Follows the Law.” Equity does not replace or violate the law, but it backs it up and supplements it. Equity follows appropriate RULES OF LAW, such as the RULES OF EVIDENCE and pretrial discovery. “Equity Acts Specifically.” This maxim means that a party who sues in equity can recover the precise thing that he or she seeks rather than monetary damages as a substitute for it. This maxim is the remedy of SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. “Equity Delights to do Justice and Not by Halves.” It is the purpose of equity to find a complete answer to the issues that are raised in a lawsuit. It will bring in all the necessary parties, balance their rights, and give a decree that should protect all of them against further litigation on the subject. Whenever necessary, the court will retain jurisdiction in order to supervise GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION MAXIM 503 enforcement of relief. For example, a lawsuit remains alive as long as an INJUNCTION is in force. Either party may come back into court and apply for reconsideration of the order if circum- stances change. Courts also retain jurisdiction when CHILD SUPPORT payments are ordered. The amount can be changed if the child’sneeds require an increase or if the supporting parent becomes ill, unemployed, or retired. “Equity will not Suffer a Wrong to be without a Remedy.” It is the traditional purpose of equity to find solutions in lawsuits. Where money will not pay for the injury, equity has the authority to find another remedy. This maxim is a restatement of the broad legal principle: Ubi jus, ibi remedium, “Where there is a right, there is a remedy.” The maxim is applied in equity in an orderly way. It does not mean that anything goes. It calls forth recognized remedies for well-established wrongs, wrongs that are invasions of property rights or personal or CIVIL RIGHTS and that the law considers actionable. A court will not listen to complaints about every petty annoyance or immoral act. “Equity Regards Substance Rather than Form.” Equity will not permit justice to be withheld just because of a technicality . Formalities that frustrate justice will be disregarded and a better approach found for each case. Equity enforces the spirit rather than the letter of the law alone. “Equity is Equality.” This maxim means that equity will not play favorites. For example, a receiver who has been appointed to collect the assets of a business in financial trouble must use the income to pay every creditor an equal share of what is owed to him or her. If a PENSION fund loses a large amount of money through poor investment, then everyone who is entitled to benefits must suffer a fair share of the loss. Three adult children of a woman who is killed in an auto accident should share equally in any money that is recovered in a WRONGFUL DEATH action if the children are the woman’s only surviving close relatives. A judge will depart from this principle only under compelling circumstances, but the rule applies only to parties who are on an equal footing. If, for example, the woman in an auto accident died leaving three young children, then the money that is recovered might be distributed in proportion to each child’s age. A younger child will have lost his or her mother for more years than an older brother or sister. Also, a receiver would have to prefer a secured creditor over those creditors who had no enforcea ble interest in a particular asset of the company. Unless there is proo f that one person in a group is in a special position, the law will assume that each should share equally in proportion to his or her contribution or loss. “Between Equal Equities the Law will Prevail.” When two parties want the same thing and the court cannot in good conscience say that one has a better right to the item than the other, the court will leave it where it is. For example, a company that had been collecting sales tax and turning it over to the state government found that it had overtaxed and overpaid by 2 percent. It applied for a refund, but the state refused. The court upheld the state on the ground that the money really belonged to the customers of the company. Because the company had no better right to the money than the state, the court left the money with the state. “Between Equal Equities the First in Order of Time Shall Prevail.” When two parties each have a right to possess something, then the one who acquired an interest first should prevail in equity. For example, a man advertises a small boat for sale in the classified section of the newspaper. The first person to see the ad offers him $20 less than the asking price, but the man accepts it. That person says he or she will pick up the boat and pay for it on Saturday. Meanwhile another person comes by, offers the man more money, and the man takes it. Who owns the boat? Contract law and equity agree that the first buyer gets the boat, and the second buyer gets his or her money back. “Equity Abhors a Forfeiture.” A FORFEITURE is a total loss of a right or a thing because of the failure to do something as required. A total loss is usually a rather stiff penalty. Unless a penalty is reasonable in relation to the seriousness of the fault, it is too harsh. In fairness and good conscience, a court of equity will refuse to permit an unreasonable forfeiture. This maxim has particularly strong GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 504 MAXIM application to the ownership of land, an interest for which the law shows great respect. Title to land should never be lost for a trivial reason— for example, a delay of only a few days in closing a deal to purchase a house. Generally equity will not interfere with a forfeiture that is required by statute, such as the loss of an airplane illegally used to smuggle drugs into the country. Unless the statute violates the DUE PROCESS requirements of the Constitution, the penalty should be enforced. “Equity abhors a forfeiture” does not overcome the maxim that “equity follows the law.” Neither will equity disregard a contract pro- vision that was fairly bargained. Generally it is assumed that a party who does most of what is required in a business contract and does it in a reasonable way, should not be penalized for the violation of a minor technicality. A contractor who completes work on a bridge one day late, for example, should not be treated as though he or she had breached the entire contract. If the parties, however, include in their agreement an express provision, such as t ime is of the ess ence, this means that both parties understand that performance on time is essential. The party who fails to perform on time would forfeit all rights under the contract. FURTHER READINGS Broom, Heerbert, ed. 2008. A Selection of Legal Maxims: Classified and Illustrated (1854). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger. Hoffer, Peter Charles. 1990. The Law’s Conscience: Equitable Constitutionalism in America. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. Kraut, Jayson, et al, eds. 1983. American Jurisprudence. Rochester, NY: Lawyers Cooperative. CROSS REFERENCES Equity; Forfeiture; Laches. MAYHEM Mayhem at COMMON LAW required a type of injury that permanently rendered the victim less able to fight offensively or defensively; it might be accomplished either by the removal of (dismem- berment), or by the disablement of, some bodily member useful in fighting. Today, by statute, permanent disfigurement has been added; and as to dismemberment and disablement, there is no longer a requirement that the member have military significance. In many states the crime of mayhem is treated as aggravated assault. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION MAYHEM 505 . (R.I. R. Fam. Ct. Prac. Rule 3.3). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 500 MATTER OF LAW v MATTHEWS, STANLEY Stanley Matthews served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from. The RULES OF EVIDENCE generally allow witnesses to testify as to what they personally know about the facts in dispute, but do not GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION MATTER OF FACT. from that of the court, which has the authority to rule on all matters of law. CROSS REFE RENCE Matter of Law. MATTER OF LAW That which is determined or ascertained through the use of statutes,