Legal Definitions - quia erronice emanavit

Quia erronice emanavit is a Latin phrase that translates to "because it issued erroneously."

This legal principle refers to a situation where a legal document, order, or process was created or released due to a mistake, error, or incorrect information. Historically, it served as a fundamental reason to challenge, revoke, or nullify such an instrument, asserting that it should not have been issued in the first place because of a significant flaw in its creation or the process leading to its issuance.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Court Order Based on Incorrect Information

  Imagine a scenario where a court issues an order to seize a specific piece of property as part of a debt collection case. However, it later comes to light that the legal documents submitted to the court mistakenly identified the wrong property address, belonging to an innocent third party, not the debtor. In this situation, the property seizure order would be considered to have "issued erroneously" because it was based on incorrect factual information presented to the court. The affected third party could argue that the order should be nullified as it targeted the wrong assets due to a fundamental error.

• Example 2: Administrative License Issued Without Proper Procedure

  Consider a local government agency that grants a business license for a new restaurant. Subsequently, it is discovered that a mandatory environmental impact review, required by law for all new food establishments in that zone, was completely overlooked during the application process. The license, therefore, would be deemed to have "issued erroneously" because the proper legal procedure for its issuance was not followed. Competitors or concerned citizens could challenge the license, arguing it was granted without adhering to a critical procedural step, making its issuance flawed from the outset.

• Example 3: Warrant Issued with a Clerical Error

  Suppose a judge signs an arrest warrant for "Sarah Johnson," but due to a clerical error by a court staff member, the warrant is typed with the name "Susan Johnson." If "Susan Johnson" is then mistakenly arrested based on this flawed document, the arrest warrant would be considered to have "issued erroneously." The error in the warrant's creation directly led to the incorrect apprehension of an individual, providing grounds to challenge the validity of the warrant and the subsequent arrest.