Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

in re

Read a random definition: pars rea

A quick definition of in re:

Term: in re

Definition: In re means "in the matter of" in Latin. It is used in legal documents to refer to a case where there is no opposing party. For example, if someone dies and their estate needs to be sorted out, the case might be called "In re Estate of Ruth Bentley." This phrase is often used in probate cases and in courts that deal with children. It is also used in cases where the proceeding is not about a person, but about something else, like property.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: In re is a Latin phrase that means "in the matter of." It is used in legal documents to refer to a case, especially when there is no opposing party. For example, "In re Estate of Ruth Bentley" might be used to refer to a probate case about the estate of Ruth Bentley. The use of "in re" refers to the object or person that is the primary subject of the case. It is commonly used in probate proceedings and in juvenile courts.

Examples:

  • "In re Gault" is a case regarding a juvenile criminal defendant.
  • "In re Marriage of Smith" might be used to refer to a divorce case where there is no dispute between the parties.
  • "In re City of New York" might be used to refer to a case involving a city government.

These examples illustrate how "in re" is used to refer to a case where there is no opposing party or where the proceeding is in rem or quasi in rem and not in personam. It is a way to identify the primary subject of the case and distinguish it from other cases with similar names.

In re Gault (1967) | in rem

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.