Talk:Amicus curiae

Latin Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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]