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.
ex parte: from [for] one party A decision reached, or case brought, by or for one party without the other party being present. ex post: from after Based on knowledge of the past. ex post facto: from a thing done afterward Commonly said as "after the fact." ex post facto law
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts for injunctions against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's sovereign immunity, when the State acted contrary to any federal law or contrary to the Constitution. [1]
The notable exceptions to the usual characteristics for a per curiam decision are the cases of New York Times Co. v. United States, Bush v. Gore, and Trump v. Anderson. Although they were per curiam, [5] each had multiple concurrences and dissents. [6] [7] Examples include: Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952 ...
In law, inter partes (Law Latin for 'between the parties' [1]) is a legal 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.
Ex tempore (Latin for "out of the moment“) is a law latin legal term that means 'at the time'. A judge who hands down a decision in a case soon or straight after hearing it is delivering a decision ex tempore. Another way a judge may deliver a decision is to reserve their decision and deliver it later in written form. [1]
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that the use of military tribunals to try civilians when civil courts are operating is unconstitutional.
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487), was a controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War. [1] It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus " under the Constitution's Suspension Clause , when Congress was in recess and therefore ...