Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

bannitus

Read a random definition: locare aliquid faciendum

A quick definition of bannitus:

Term: BANNITUS

Definition: Bannitus is a word from Law Latin that means a person who is under a ban or an outlaw. A ban is a public proclamation or summons that deals with various matters, such as calling to arms or declaring someone an outlaw. Bannitus is also used in Ecclesiastical law to refer to an authoritative prohibition or excommunication. To ban means to prohibit, especially by legal means.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Bannitus (ban-uh-tuhs) is a term from Law Latin that refers to a person who is under a ban or an outlaw. It is similar to the term "ban" which is a public proclamation or summons. Bans were used to call people to arms or to declare someone an outlaw. Bannitus can also refer to an authoritative ecclesiastical prohibition or excommunication.

  • After committing a serious crime, the king declared the thief a bannitus, meaning he was now an outlaw and could be punished without consequence.
  • The church issued a bannitus against the priest who had been caught stealing from the collection plate.
  • When a couple wants to get married in a church, they must have their banns of matrimony announced to the congregation for three consecutive weeks.

The examples illustrate how bannitus can be used in different contexts. In the first example, it refers to a person who has been declared an outlaw by the king. In the second example, it refers to a person who has been excommunicated by the church. In the third example, it refers to the announcement of a couple's intention to marry in a church.

bannitio | banns of matrimony

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
llama i appreciate you
17:35
@LawIsForPeasants: while charlie kirk's facts do not care about your feelings, just know that I do!
texaslawhopefully
17:36
@Dkk: Fair enough, but if you're using political philosophy to defend Trump, it's hard to reconcile him as a candidate with very relevant classic political theory, like Locke's individual rights and limited government as illustrated in the 2nd treatise, or the constitutional framework limiting executive power (e.g., Federalist 51). Trump's disregard for constitutional checks and populist rhetoric directly is in tension with our very foundational principles.
Dkk
17:36
@SplitterusClitterus: sounds good. Trying to paint a wine glass rn anyway after I just woke up.
Dkk
17:37
@texaslawhopefully: Psssh I would not use gender relations as a way to defend Trump. He does not go that route and I think literally him and everyone in their cabinet has no idea what those are. I mean, just look at how many divorces Elon and Trump have had.
texaslawhopefully
17:38
Was that not why you said you voted for him?
17:38
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: can I ask what “2 years retroactive withdrawals” means
17:39
elon and trump realize there are many fish in the sea, and sometimes u can't just 'make it work'
@sadpadresfan: grades changed to W for two consecutive years of classes
Dkk
17:39
Nah, I did not vote. I have never voted in my life because I have a lot of issues with it. 4 years ago my mom filled out my ballot for me because she wanted to but I do not vote.
17:40
based fellow non voter
@llama i do not need or desire external validation.
17:40
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: ah I see
17:41
@LawIsForPeasants: ok, sorry, I will not bother u while u 'self validate yourself in the corner' my bad.
@llama: im self validating so hard rn
17:42
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: thats very ithica of you, wasp.
texaslawhopefully
17:44
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: Out of curiosity, since you're in law school and prolly know fedsoc people, how conservative do you think you have to be to be in fedsoc? Like is a david french sort of conservative fairly common in it, or is it the maga type people mainly
i dont interact with any fedsoc people, but i dont know any maga people at cornell. but the student body overwhelmingly leans left, so i think they might not be comfortable showing that theyre conservative if that makes sense?
one time a guy kind of crashed out about masks in conlaw
but that's the most ive seen
texaslawhopefully
17:47
Yeah, that does make sense. I would like to join fedsoc, but I'm also, clearly, very opposed to Trump and where the GOP has gone.
if you join fedsoc and go for clerking and eventually become a judge. you will be pinholed into maga politics as long as maga is the predominant conservative stance
Idk if @irishdinosaur is online but congrats on UCLA!!
next you will say you want to be the first black kkk grand wizard
@SaddestPortlander: tysm!!!!
texaslawhopefully
18:00
yes congrats irishdinosaur! that's incredible
18:03
@IrishDinosaur: you inspire me and my completely misguided cope that I might ever get into UCLA
Super big congrats irish!!!
Also pretty much agree with Wasp. I think it’s more about getting the political/judicial position as a Fedsoc member that will likely require a stance siding with whatever the conservative majority party is at that time.
texaslawhopefully
18:07
Yeah, that's fair. I guess I need to think about it more assuming I start law school in the fall. I really want to clerk and that seems like the best option.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.