Talk:Certiorari

Latin Corrections

certiorem facio means "I make more certain" certiorem facere mean "to make more certain"

I'm unsure which English phrase was intended, but I'm changing the Latin to mean what the English is saying to keep accuracy. Billy 18:15 May 3, 2006

certainity has no degrees in latin, it being an implicit superlative. therefore, more certain is nonsense. that certioro would be a contraction of certiorem facere/facio etc is also certainly false, but i'm too tired right now to look for proof. just because both terms appear in ulpian doesn't make the shorter a contraction of the longer.

Just a quick question

Is there anyway to tie in how a writ of Certiorari is made before an execution? If this sounds like a bad idea, thats fine, I was merely wondering for my own curiosity and I am sure others may want to know. Thanks!! BartonBelle 09:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

Certiorari (pronunciation: \sər-sh(ē-)ə-ˈrer-ē, -ˈrär-ē, -ˈra-rē\)

This pronunciation guide is completely at odds with how this term would be pronounced in Latin. The first two syllables, in particular, are completely wrong. There is no such thing as a "soft c" in Latin. They're all pronounced as the English /k/. The /t/ would also be fully articulated, and not softened. The 4th syllable /r/, at least, would be rolled.

So my ultimate point is, who decides this is how to pronounce it? Is it an English term, or is it a Latin term? Are we going to claim the given pronunciation guide reflects how it is "usually" pronounced in the modern day? How was that conclusion reached? Etc, etc. Remove the pronunciation guide, put the term in Wiktionary, whatever. It doesn't belong here. --75.58.54.17 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Atque memento, nulli adsunt Romanorum qui locutionem tuam corrigant.

(Always remember, there aren't any Romans to correct your pronunciation.)

The way that Cicero might have pronounced a legal term in English seems unimportant, particularly since the Roman courts have adjourned sine die (which term, in the U. S. Congress, rhymes with piney pie). Mainstream dictionaries (Merriam-Webster's 11th, for example) give the "sir-she" pronunciation. OtherDave (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've included an article listing the many ways of pronouncing the word. it mentions the recommended way of pronouncing it using english pronunciation rules according on black's law dictionary; the linguist way of pronouncing it based on classic latin; and also how most of the supreme court justices pronounce it. Lucky dog (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern regarding the Certiorari page is not with variations on pronunciation. Traditionally, there has existed significant differences in the pronunciation of Latin amongst the many English speaking societies and, thus, a true consensus is unlikely. My concern regards the use of the IPA table as the lone phonetic aid. Regardless of the entry on the IPA suggesting an already widespread, international usage, the reality is that no other widely accessible English resource implements the IPA's proprietary table. Until such time as the IPA does become a widely implemented and utilized pronunciation resource, I would suggest that a more traditional phonetic example be added to the page.

Ex: Certiorari (pronounced /ˌsɜrʃioʊˈrɛəri, -ˈrɑri/ ; sûr'shē-ə-râr'ē, -rä'rē).

For English speakers, the more traditional example (with established characters) may provide a more immediate understanding of the phonetic pronunciation. I have not yet edited the article. However, I would hope that regard be given to my suggestion and a more accessible example be added.(MOB)DeadMeat (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sub nom.

Need to double check on this: I seem to remember that "sub nom." is an abbreviation for "sub nomine," not "sub nomen". Stay tuned..... Famspear (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Law

Having done the research for another project, I took on the challenge of explaining its use in Commonwealth jurisdictions. The nature of the beast is such that its use is essentially uniform throughout the Commonwealth; for this reason, it makes little sense to distinguish between the practices in Australia, Britain, Canada, India, New Zealand, et al. Bouldergeist (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This statement is completely wrong. The remedy of judicial review and certiorari has evolved differently in each Commonwealth jurisdiction, and it cannot be assumed that a citation to an English case will be the binding precedent in another Commonwealth country. The clearest example of that is the Anisminic case cited in the English section. The Canadian courts rejected Anisminic and declined to hold that certiorari is a general writ of error. In Canada, certiorari is used primarily on grounds of jurisdictional and procedural error, leaving considerable discretion to administrative agencies to interpret the substantive provisions of their own statutes. I've deleted that language and broken the Commonwealth section into separate countries; more work needed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Translation of term

The article had originally claimed, without citation that certiorari translates to "to be more fully informed" and is rooted in the Latin certiorare ("to show, prove, or ascertain". However, Google Translate translates "certiorari" as "news", and translates "to be more fully informed" as "ad plenius".

Elsewhere, the article had also claimed, contradictorily, that the root certiorare translates as "to show, prove, or ascertain". Again, this uncited claim doesn't proof out when subjected to Google Translate. Yes, Google Translate may be imperfect, but the claims still need RS citation. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

US-centric

The Commonwealth definition is vague to the point that I'm not sure whether it's wrong and only the US meaning appears in the introduction before the contents page. I know for a fact that it has a different meaning in Ireland. In the US a superior court sends it to a lower court, thus taking the iniatative; in Ireland (and I think Commonwealth), it means that the respondent of a case sends a request upwards. In the end, a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court, but the certiorari itself comes and goes to completely different people. Thus is something different. I can't find the name of the banner thingy; "this doesn't represent a world view" or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberivore (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If the term covers a different thing in a different jurisdiction, it should be in a separate article. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and each article should be on a particular subject, not on the definition of the title of the article. The bulk of the article is on the subject of the writ under which a higher court grants discretionary review. To the extent there are other things that also go by the name "certiorari," they should be in their own articles. TJRC (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just identified potential vandalism by 64.119.87.132 on 13 February 2009 to the section on certiorari as applied in American federal courts

Those edits mangled the meaning of several excellent edits by User:Pmadrid a week earlier and appear to be potential vandalism. This one and this one are particularly atrocious. Any objections before I revert that text back to the last good version? --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "worldwide view" tag, November 2021

I have removed the hatnote concerning "worldwide view" given that English Common law is the modern (e.g. after the year 1000 A.D.) historical sources of the writ discussed. Thus, unfortunately, anyway we go about this, if we are to be accurate, will give significant weight to the concepts of English Common law and U.S. law in particular, because these are the first places in the era of modern history the writ of Certiorari become of significance. Therefore, the hatnote is particularly inappropriate for this article in view of how the relevant policy is intended to function. Anyone who disagrees with this should comment here for purposes of determining and/or obtaining consensus, especially before unilaterally undoing the revision to the article. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)