Talk:Maxims of equity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Trying to make some improvements[edit]

This is an interesting subject that needs more work. Many remedies casebooks don't even list the maxims anymore, and many remedies profs don't recite them. Thus, I am grateful to whoever started this article with the handout materials and case citations. However, the information so far is incomplete in some explanations, and in my opinion, inadequately grounded in citation for wiki standards. I am trying to rework some of the explanations, and will soon provide authority for as much as possible. To the extent that my grammar is a bit unwiki, I welcome anyone to try to clear up what I've done or add their own input. Non Curat Lex (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Typos and Commentary in the Forfeiture Section[edit]

I just fixed two typos in this section, Today instead of Tay and latter instead of lat. No biggie. I'm concerned about the swinging pendulum commentary near the end of the paragraph. It's not very encyclopedic, but lacking particular knowledge of the subject I'm loathe to remove it. Does anyone have any references that could be used to support a resurgence in court favoritism for upholding foreclosures in the face of equitable suit? --Dpowens 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Joke[edit]

I'm not crazy about the inclusion of "equity taketh no shit". It's almost funny, but it seems a gratuitous use of foul language in the 'pedia. And anyway, I'm a law student, and I've never heard the joke. If we want to retain levity, could we just include an external link to one of the lists of funny (and much more clever) maxims of equity, like this one? http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/equity.htm --Dreamword 16:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's funny, although I can't say I've heard it elsewhere --Grouse 01:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of it before. I googled and only found it in Wiki-clones... I'd guess somebody made it up. I am in favor of removing it.
I've never heard it either, and I've been admitted to practice for 7 years, but it is funny. I vote to leave it in. Ellsworth 00:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it to the talk page:
In modern times, law students have summed up the meaning of the maxims as:

Just thought y'sll would like to know the link, above, is busted. 500 - Internal Server Error. NorthCoastReader (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut and pasted older version, including joke[edit]

I restored it, my professor passed out a 2004 version of this page, I cut and pasted this slimmer version above the new, bloated version. I really like the taketh no shit saying, it got a big laugh in our trusts class. Travb (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

request for addition[edit]

There are over 450 (mostly Greek / Roman) legal Maxims (with England's additions) that are just as wise and which %95 still valid and in use. (not simply latin phrases intermixed)

The "equity maxims" ... many of the 450 maxims mention euqity but these 19 maxims actually describe "in what way we come forward to ask for equity".

user sven_nestle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.128.215 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention request[edit]

  • There is only one reference in a standard format. There are some references to case law and some references to secondary sources, but these need to be much tighter (with page numbers etc.) so it is clear where and how (and why) the maxims of equity are and were applied.
  • The context is almost completely lacking. When were these maxims created? Why? Are they still all relevant now? Are they relevant in different jurisdictions?
  • Where has this list of maxims come from? When was it created? Is it the standard list? Are there other lists?

Thanks, merlin --Merlinme (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Back in the day, I believe it is correct to say that lawyers were taught that the maxims evolved over time. They were created, either wholly or in part, in an attempt to resolve individual cases - cases in which the law (as applied in the law courts) failed to provide adequate relief in the view of the suing party, and, ultimately, in the view of the Crown or the government. They are still relevant to the extent that they are still followed. Some lesser maxims may have fallen away due to changes in notions of substantial justice or changes in the law which served to offer more adequate relief than had previously been the case. The effect of some may have changed during the process of "unifying" the court systems (i.e., merging the previously separate courts of equity and courts of law into one unified system in which all law and equity actions could be pursued), for instance, at the federal level in the United States and in many, if not all, of the several states. They should remain relevant in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States which have legal systems built upon the English legal system and tradition. The maxims which are listed came from the Chancery Courts themselves and from the work of commentators and scholars and professors of law who distilled the maxims from the work of the Courts. There may be different lists - lists which differ because of the differing opinions of those examining the cases.
For a very brief back-up to this answer (with lots of room for inference on the part of the reader), one could consult this link, specifically, the section under the heading "Historical Background." For a truly exhaustive examination of the subject of Equity, one could consult the material found at this link to a treatise found on the Internet Archive. CAUTION: This one is a whopper. In the upper left canton of the screen, click on "See Other Formats" to choose among some different ways to view the treatise. If one does this, one can note that the Internet Archive claims this treatise falls outside copyright protection. NorthCoastReader (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)