Legal Definitions - ad quod non fuit responsum

Ad quod non fuit responsum is a Latin phrase that translates to "to which there was no answer."

In legal practice, particularly in historical law reports and judicial opinions, this phrase was used to denote an argument, objection, or point of law that was raised by one party but was not directly addressed, countered, or responded to by the opposing party or by the court in its decision. It signifies an unaddressed contention within a legal proceeding or document, highlighting a point that was made but left without a direct reply.

• Example 1: Unanswered Argument in a Court Hearing

  During a pre-trial motion hearing, a defense attorney argues that certain evidence should be excluded because the police violated their client's Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a search without probable cause. The prosecutor then presents their arguments to the judge, focusing on the importance of the evidence and its relevance to the case, but never directly addresses or refutes the defense's specific claim about the lack of probable cause for the search. In this scenario, the defense's argument regarding the absence of probable cause could be described as "ad quod non fuit responsum" because it was raised but received no direct counter-argument from the prosecution.

• Example 2: Unaddressed Point in Legal Briefs

  A plaintiff's attorney files an appellate brief arguing that the trial court made a critical error by misinterpreting a specific state statute, leading to an incorrect judgment. The defendant's attorney then files a responsive brief that extensively discusses other alleged errors by the trial court and the overall fairness of the proceedings, but completely omits any discussion or counter-argument regarding the plaintiff's specific claim about the misinterpretation of the state statute. Here, the plaintiff's argument about the statutory misinterpretation would be "ad quod non fuit responsum" within the defendant's brief, as it was presented but not answered.

• Example 3: Overlooked Point in a Judicial Opinion

  In a complex environmental law case, a panel of appellate judges issues a majority opinion upholding a regulatory agency's decision. A dissenting judge writes a separate opinion, meticulously detailing how the agency failed to follow its own established administrative procedures, which, in the dissenter's view, should invalidate the decision. If the majority opinion makes no mention of this specific procedural oversight, nor attempts to explain why it was deemed irrelevant or correctly followed, then the dissenting judge's point on the agency's procedural failure could be characterized as "ad quod non fuit responsum" by the majority opinion.