Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In law, ex parte (/ ɛ k s ˈ p ɑːr t eɪ,-iː /) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction [1] of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.
inaudita altera parte: without hearing the other party Equivalent of common law ex parte, especially in the context of submitting a motion, brief, or obtaining relief as fast as possible incapax: incapable (Scots law) person not having capacity (mental, legal, or otherwise). [ɪnˈkapaks] indignus (heres) unworthy heir
This page is one of a series listing English translations of notable Latin phrases, such as veni, vidi, vici and et cetera. Some of the phrases are themselves translations of Greek phrases, as ancient Greek rhetoric and literature started centuries before the beginning of Latin literature in ancient Rome. [1] This list covers the letter M.
Inter partes, Latin for 'between the parties', [1] is a law term that can be distinguished from in rem, which refers to a legal action whose jurisdiction is based on the control of property, or ex parte, which refers to a legal action that is by a single party.
The original meaning was similar to "the game is afoot", but its modern meaning, like that of the phrase "crossing the Rubicon", denotes passing the point of no return on a momentous decision and entering into a risky endeavor where the outcome is left to chance. alenda lux ubi orta libertas: Let light be nourished where liberty has arisen
Exempli gratiā is usually abbreviated "e. g." or "e.g." (less commonly, ex. gr.).The abbreviation "e.g." is often interpreted (Anglicised) as 'example given'. The plural exemplōrum gratiā to refer to multiple examples (separated by commas) is now not in frequent use; when used, it may be seen abbreviated as "ee.g." or even "ee.gg.", corresponding to the practice of doubling plurals in Latin ...
Ex parte Bollman (1807) was an early case that made many important arguments about the power of the Supreme Court, as well as the constitutional definition of treason. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Dred Scott, a slave owned by a Dr. Emerson, was taken from Missouri to a free state and then back to Missouri again. Scott sued, claiming that his ...
Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. [1]