Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

in perpetuum rei testimonium

Read a random definition: Court of Civil Appeals

A quick definition of in perpetuum rei testimonium:

Term: IN PERPETUUM REI TESTIMONIUM

Definition: In perpetuum rei testimonium means "in perpetual testimony of a matter" in Law Latin. It refers to a statute that confirms existing common law. This phrase is used when the parliament declares what the common law is and has always been to avoid doubts and difficulties. It is like saying, "We want to make sure everyone knows what the law is and always has been."

A more thorough explanation:

In perpetuum rei testimonium (in pər-pet-yoo-əm ree-ee tes-ti-moh-nee-əm), is a Latin phrase used in law. It means "in perpetual testimony of a matter." This phrase refers to a statute that confirms existing common law.

For example, if a law has been in place for a long time, but people are starting to forget about it or argue about what it means, the government might pass a new law that says "in perpetuum rei testimonium" to confirm that the old law is still valid and should be followed.

Another example is when a court makes a ruling that sets a new legal precedent. If the ruling is important and should be followed in the future, the court might use the phrase "in perpetuum rei testimonium" to make it clear that this ruling should be considered part of the law from now on.

The examples illustrate how the phrase "in perpetuum rei testimonium" is used to confirm or establish the validity of existing laws or legal precedents. It is a way of making sure that everyone knows what the law is and that it will continue to be followed in the future.

in perpetuum | in personam judgment

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
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.