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.
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 parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925), was a US Supreme Court case that held that the US President may pardon criminal contempt of court. [1] [2] Grossman had been convicted of criminal contempt but was pardoned by the President. The district court subsequently sent him back to prison.
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]
ex proprio motu: by [one's] own motion Commonly spoken as "by one's own accord." ex rel [arising] out of the narration [of the relator] Abbreviation of ex relatione. Used when the government brings a case that arises from the information conveyed to it by a third party ("relator"). ex tempore: At the time
In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court's judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case. [1] [2] Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the result of a case. Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has ...
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 Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328 (1885), was an application for a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from imprisonment in the District of Columbia jail where he was held, as he alleges, unlawfully by John S. Crocker, the warden of the jail.