Legal decision or proceeding during which not all parties to the dispute are present
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Ex parte" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR(May 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
In law, ex parte (/ɛksˈpɑːrteɪ,-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 English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.
The term is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator, or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party. The phrase was common in the titles of habeas corpus and judicial review cases until the end of the twentieth century, because those cases were originally brought by the Crown on behalf of the claimant. In Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, the title typically appeared as R v (Defendant), ex parte (Claimant); in the US, this was shortened to Ex parte (Claimant). A proceeding in an executive agency to establish a right, such as patent prosecution, can also be ex parte.[2]
^Cassell's Latin Dictionary, Marchant, J. R. V., & Charles, Joseph F. (eds.), Revised Edition, 1928, pp. 200-201
^Burgess John A., (1 January 1968). "Demise of Res Judicata in Ex Parte Patent Office Practice". Notre Dame Law Review. 43:2. pp. 214–226.
In law, exparte (/ɛks ˈpɑːrteɪ, -iː/) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus...
Exparte 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. It...
Exparte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), was a case of the United States Supreme Court that during World War II upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military...
Exparte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866), was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the disbarment of former Confederate officials...
Exparte 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...
Exparte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court exparte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously...
Exparte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869), is a United States Supreme Court decision that considered its jurisdiction to review decisions of lower...
Secretary of State for the Home Department, Exparte V. and Reg. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Exparte T". Publications.parliament.uk. Archived...
Exparte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts for injunctions against officials acting...
Exparte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Bollman held that the constitutional definition...
Exparte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935) is a United States patent law decision. When a patent application is in condition...
Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (also known as Sommersett v Steuart, Somersett's case, and the Mansfield Judgment) is a judgment of the English Court...
Exparte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878), was a United States Supreme Court exparte decision. The case decided that the United States Post Office may open...
Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was a British man who was hanged for the murder of a policeman during a burglary attempt. Christopher...
Exparte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native...
Exparte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), was a United States Supreme Court case involving grand jury indictments. George M. Bain, Jr. was indicted by a federal...
Exparte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 243 (1864), is a United States Supreme Court case, involving a former congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio...
ExParte Bowman 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1669 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2001) was a decision by the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences which asserted that...
eight years behind bars". BBC News. 12 March 1964. Retrieved 12 April 2009. "Ex-Governor of West Virginia Pleads Guilty to Bribing Foreman of His Jury". The...
Wikisource has original text related to this article: Exparte Grossman (267 U.S. 87) Exparte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925), was a US Supreme Court case...
Exparte Yerger, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 85 (1869), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that, under the Judiciary...
Exparte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882), is an 8–1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that the Act of August 15, 1876 was a constitutional exercise...
Exparte 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...
Global Information