A consequence should not be drawn from another consequence.

Explanation

(English-origin maxim.) Legal reasoning must proceed from established facts or settled principles, not from inferences stacked upon other inferences — a chain of speculation does not constitute proof.

Where this applies

• A prosecutor argues that because the defendant was in the neighborhood (inference one) he probably saw the crime (inference two) and therefore must have been involved (inference three), and the court rejects this stacked reasoning as speculation upon speculation.
• An insurance company denies a claim by inferring from an inference — the policyholder might have been negligent, and that negligence might have caused the loss — and the court holds that conclusions cannot rest on a chain of guesses.
• A plaintiff argues that because a company's stock price fell (fact), the CEO must have known about problems (inference one), and must therefore have acted fraudulently (inference two), and the court dismisses the claim as impermissible reasoning from consequence to consequence.