![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Could someone site an example of when the legal term, in this context, of prejudice is used singularly and not accompanied by "with" or "without". I could not find one. If there is not an example, shouldn't the title of the article be "With/Without Prejudice" or some wiki acceptable gramatical variation with both "Without Prejudice" and "With Prejudice" redirecting here. As well shouldn't it be "legal term", not "legal procedure"? A "Dismissal With Prejudice" would be a procedure whereas "With Prejudice" alone would simply be a descriptive detail of a procedure.
Thus "With/Without Prejudice (legal term)" seems a more appropriate title. DFinmitre ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
So that would bring up the question, which I think is a good one. Should this article explain the other contexts of prejudice as it is applied as a legal term singularly, as you have begun doing already. In which case WP and WOP would just be two examples of several examples of the use of prejudice in legal context. I think this would actually be useful as these examples are quite different than a layman might otherwise be accustomed to seeing prejudice applied. Such application would also emphisize that it is a legal term, not a procedure, which would make it more logical for the title to be: Prejudice (legal term) DFinmitre ( talk) 04:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Under common law a law suit can be "dismissed with prejudice". There is nothing in this article which explains what that means. Nick Beeson ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This article does a good (albeit unconfirmed) job of explaining prejudice in regard to the dismissal of a case, but has no mention of prejudice in regard to the presentation of evidence or testimony. Although it's a completely different concept, it deserves a part of this article, since there's no good parenthetical besides "law." Twin Bird 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
this page should either be deleted or cited Eisenhower 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
For some unexplained reason, this important meaning was deleted. I have restored it JohnClarknew ( talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. I also believe it is an important meaning that needed to be brought back.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 05:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In UK (well, English) law, it is an offence to comment on evidence that could be used in court, or to comment on a case in progress [other than to report what was said]. We really should have a section on that. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over and the jury has given its verdict.
Can someone please explain the meaning of this provision in Article 12 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances:
Thanks, Nathan256 29 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)
I think there should be a paragraph explaining (best supported by some etymological information) how the legal meanings of the word are different from what it normally denotes. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prejudice (legal term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusing about the therm 'civil law' as used in this article. The lead says, "Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings when used in criminal, civil or common law", with 'civil law' linking to Civil law (legal system), a name to distinguish certain legal systems from the Aglosaxon common law systems. However, the section 'Civil law' says, "Within legal civil procedure, prejudice is a loss or injury, ...", linking to Civil procedure (an entirely different meaning of the term civil law) and seems to speak about the use of the term in civil cases in the common law countries.
I doubt that 'prejudice' (as opposed to terms like 'prejudicial quesion') has any meaning in the civil law countries. At least, from this article, it is not clear what the meaning would be. Are there English-speaking countries with such a system anyway?
As the 'Common law' section is also about civil procedures, I think the two sections should be merged and the link in the lead should be changed. Bever ( talk) 13:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Could someone site an example of when the legal term, in this context, of prejudice is used singularly and not accompanied by "with" or "without". I could not find one. If there is not an example, shouldn't the title of the article be "With/Without Prejudice" or some wiki acceptable gramatical variation with both "Without Prejudice" and "With Prejudice" redirecting here. As well shouldn't it be "legal term", not "legal procedure"? A "Dismissal With Prejudice" would be a procedure whereas "With Prejudice" alone would simply be a descriptive detail of a procedure.
Thus "With/Without Prejudice (legal term)" seems a more appropriate title. DFinmitre ( talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
So that would bring up the question, which I think is a good one. Should this article explain the other contexts of prejudice as it is applied as a legal term singularly, as you have begun doing already. In which case WP and WOP would just be two examples of several examples of the use of prejudice in legal context. I think this would actually be useful as these examples are quite different than a layman might otherwise be accustomed to seeing prejudice applied. Such application would also emphisize that it is a legal term, not a procedure, which would make it more logical for the title to be: Prejudice (legal term) DFinmitre ( talk) 04:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Under common law a law suit can be "dismissed with prejudice". There is nothing in this article which explains what that means. Nick Beeson ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This article does a good (albeit unconfirmed) job of explaining prejudice in regard to the dismissal of a case, but has no mention of prejudice in regard to the presentation of evidence or testimony. Although it's a completely different concept, it deserves a part of this article, since there's no good parenthetical besides "law." Twin Bird 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
this page should either be deleted or cited Eisenhower 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
For some unexplained reason, this important meaning was deleted. I have restored it JohnClarknew ( talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring. I also believe it is an important meaning that needed to be brought back.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 05:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In UK (well, English) law, it is an offence to comment on evidence that could be used in court, or to comment on a case in progress [other than to report what was said]. We really should have a section on that. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over and the jury has given its verdict.
Can someone please explain the meaning of this provision in Article 12 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances:
Thanks, Nathan256 29 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)
I think there should be a paragraph explaining (best supported by some etymological information) how the legal meanings of the word are different from what it normally denotes. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prejudice (legal term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusing about the therm 'civil law' as used in this article. The lead says, "Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings when used in criminal, civil or common law", with 'civil law' linking to Civil law (legal system), a name to distinguish certain legal systems from the Aglosaxon common law systems. However, the section 'Civil law' says, "Within legal civil procedure, prejudice is a loss or injury, ...", linking to Civil procedure (an entirely different meaning of the term civil law) and seems to speak about the use of the term in civil cases in the common law countries.
I doubt that 'prejudice' (as opposed to terms like 'prejudicial quesion') has any meaning in the civil law countries. At least, from this article, it is not clear what the meaning would be. Are there English-speaking countries with such a system anyway?
As the 'Common law' section is also about civil procedures, I think the two sections should be merged and the link in the lead should be changed. Bever ( talk) 13:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)