Talk:Amicus curiae

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

US pov?

Could someone (who understands the US situation) rewrite this so that it is not US POV?

I would start by saying that an "Amicus curiae" (lit "friend of the court") is (or clearly was in the US) an individual who came before the court as an advocate but was not a party to proceedings, usually to give assistance to the court on a point of law, or general public importance. An "amicus curiae" brief is ...

My understanding of the article is that the phrase amicus curiae is always followed by "brief" in the US. Until very recently, that was not true in England, and an amicus curiae could just be a helpful person in court who assists with points of law, when neither party has the expertise. We now say "friend of the court" or some such, in our drive to avoid Latin.

Francis Davey 14:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well the article has become even more US POV since it now quotes what are apparently US rules of usage. It doesn't say enough to identify them as such though. The "Rules defining use" section really ought to go.

Francis Davey 21:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Casting around for some defintions, Utah courts apparently define it as, "A friend of the court; a nonparty who interposes, with the permission of the court, and volunteers information upon some matter before the court." Delaware courts as, "A friend of the court. One not a party to a case who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it". AP Glossary, "Latin for 'friend of the court.' It is, most often, unsolicited advice given to a trial judge or appeals court by a person or organization interested, but not involved, in a dispute." This is consistent with what I learned in Civics class, many moons ago, and does not necessarily imply a brief. Robert A West 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rehquist and Amicus Curiae

"... a phrase that literally means "friend of the court" -- someone who is not a party to the litigation, but who believes that the court's decision may affect its interest." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 89. I'm a bit confused in actually finding this quote. Can anyone advise where and what is page 89 of the Supreme Court means. I'm not sure about where this quote is cited from. Thanks!

It's from page 89 of a book by Rehnquist called The Supreme Court. Postdlf 05:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Amicus curiæ → Amicus curiae

Rationale The Latin æ is hard to find and is rarely used even by lawyers at least in the US. News organizations use "ae". A regular layperson would never use the æ. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Support EdwinHJ | Talk 00:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weakly I would not have chosen it myself, even with the insert panel making it easy, but it is equivalent to a dialectical difference, and the necessary redirects do exist. Septentrionalis 13:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support weakly With the right redirects it surely makes little difference, but the digraph usage is essentially obsolete here. Mind you we have just abolished the term in England, at least officially. Francis Davey 18:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. – Smyth\^talk 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yea because we really shouldn't use characters that are not used anymore. Since this is ENGLISH Wikipedia, we use "ae" MicahMN | Talk 02:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Support with borderline indifference because redirects make it almost irrelevant, but no sense in having the article under a main title that doesn't reflect the most common form of the term. Postdlf 04:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the æ symbol is a medieval invention unknown to Classical Latin, where the phrase would have been written AMICVS CVRIAE. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - æ (æ: æ) is easy to use, even without the magic buttons, and is common in the UK (as in Encyclopædia Britannica) but this article started off without the ligature and changed in January 2004 - diff -- ALoan (Talk) 18:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a Brief

Do any experts in this area have information to contribute to the article about how an individual can go about filing an Amicus Curiae brief, or if it is possible to do so without special permissions/access? I feel this should be included in the article if someone who knows how this is done can include it. - Jack Colorado 24.10.88.246 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO - it's easy enough to find the Supreme Court Rules for Amicus briefs elsewhere and, as you can see at my link, "An amicus curiae brief may be filed only by an attorney admitted to practice before [the] Court as provided in Rule 5". AP (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal interpretations" section

Currently this section is wholly comprised of a quote by Rehnquist which does nothing more than restate the definition. I'm removing the section unless/until it can be fleshed out to something useful. 71.241.204.35 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isegoria

I've removed a suggestion that the concept of Amicus Curiae is related to the Greek concept of Isegoria. As far as I can see they are quite different concepts. Isegoria is about equality of rights to address the assembly, whereas an amicus curiae assists the court and does not represent an interest. 82.68.102.190 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. Francis Davey (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue? Copy paste to / from http://michael-angelo.wrytestuff.com/swa254361.htm

This article appears to be pasted to or from: http://michael-angelo.wrytestuff.com/swa254361.htm

If it was copied from the other site to wikipedia, the article itself may be a copyright violation. If it was copied from wikipedia to the other site without attribution, that may be a copyright violation of wikipedia content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raybmorris (talk • contribs) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?

Is the "i" in amicus pronounced as [ɜ] or a long [i]? Does the "standard" English (legal) pronunciation match the way the Latin would be pronounced? Seems like something that should be in the lead, given that pronunciations for other foreign loanwords on Wikipedia. 98.223.232.121 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Jim[reply]

I'm not a latin scholar but I believe it's pronounced as in 'amicable' in both cases. AP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the recent cases as below given herein;

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NOs. 101-103 IN CONTEMPT PETITIONS (C) NO.412 - 413 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEALS NO. 9813 AND 9833 OF 2011 AND CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.260 OF 2013 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.8643 OF 2012

S.E.B.I. …Appellant Versus Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents T.S. Thakur, J.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India having taken into consideration of the nature of the proceedings and the stakes that are involved, we need to appoint an amicus curiae. We accordingly, request Mr. F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate to assist the Court as an amicus curiae. Shri Nariman shall be free to associate two juniors of his choice to brief him in the matter. The Court directed that the Amicus curiae shall be paid his fee @ Rs.1,10,000/- per hearing while the juniors assisting him shall be paid Rs.10,000/- per person for every hearing. The amount so due shall be paid by SEBI by debit to account Saharas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.232.110 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with links

The link in reference 1 leads to a page that says "Requested page not found". Here is the link to a snapshot of that page in the wayback machine https://web.archive.org/web/20140304092012/http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mclauchlan1005.htm

Similarly the link in reference 2 leads to a page that says "Error 404". Also, reference 8 is a link to the 2010 Rules of the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court Website updated the rules to the 2013 Rules of the Supreme Court at this link https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf

The link in reference 10 goes to a page that shows "404 Not Found".

(Anonymouscontributer (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]