Talk:Ex parte

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Could someone point me at a template or cross links for legal terms and concepts? How about one for pronunciation markup and guidelines?JimD 20:58, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

British new legalese

What is ex parte now in the new British legalese (after some review panel's report)? I just saw A (FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) etc.; what does "(FC)" mean? – Kaihsu 15:58, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

(1) FC = Funded Client, i.e. recipient of legal aid (government subsidy for legal representation). (2) In this judgment the only reference to ex parte in the citation of another case "R v Governor of Durham Prison, Ex p Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704". Having looked up this case, it concerns an application for an order of habeas corpus. 86.180.195.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Garland

I deleted the reference since the case does not have anything to say about the term; while it had "ex parte" in the caption and was about ex post facto laws, two plus two does not equal three. I also cleaned up the previous discussion regarding use of the term in habeas corpus cases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.41.116 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

need reference for this

However, the Patriot Act, signed into law by Congress and President in 2001, 45 days after the September 11 attacks, allows in wartime for the arrest and ex parte trial of anyone deemed as aiding the enemy in any way (eg. terrorists). This actually includes (and specifies) foreigners, which was a major stumbling block previously in hunting down terrorists (they were not legalized Americans, therefore not as much could be done regarding them). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 23:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Is it always /ˌɛks ˈpɑrtiː/? I feel I've heard it ending /ei/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.141.1.91 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same. That would be the more correct pronunciation, in any case. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous "citation needed" tagging

The statement about the 10 AM rule for ex parte proceedings in California was tagged "citation needed." That tag was completely frivolous. The reference is the same as the reference earlier in the paragraph, differing only b a few lines in the source document. It is obvious that whoever placed that tag did so without troubling so much as to examine the other, nearby reference on the same subject to see if it covered both statements.

There ought to be a Wikipedia-wide policy about this. I see it all the time: people bombing other people's work with frivolous tags that show a great deal more about the laziness of the tagger than they do about the content of the article.

I've supplied the reference needed to justify vaporizing the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poihths (talk • contribs) 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]