iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

doctrinally, what happened to Charles I was regicide and the High Court of Justice trying him genuinely did have no authority.

010 1

Even with the vagary on how you define the Crown, which is a matter of acknowledged doctrinal inconsistency, I think the answer is clearly firmly no. though as bodies corporate there are public entities that can be criminally liable.

210 2

See also Wade, Forsyth, & Ghosh, Administrative Law, 12 edn at 664 (noting that the situation regarding costs in such a proceeding is unclear)

100 1

Fascinated to learn that, though not common, it remains possible to bring a common law petition of right as a remedy in contract against the King in situations not covered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Franklin v Attorney General [1974] QB 185, 201, HC per Lawson J.

This makes it annoying for someone who is not a weirdo style obsessive (i.e., not like me) who might not realize there are plenty of references!

030 3

The biggest practical point of this is actually distinctly digital, because if you wanted to search a recent Supreme Court opinion for "MS-13" you'd get 0 results because the computer only finds "MS–13".

Usually three hyphens default changed? But never to an en-dash?

000 0

so "This—the law—is bad" becomes under JT's rules (for Penguin Books and behind the beautiful redesign that makes their paperbacks so wonderful to this day!) "This – the law – is bad"

I think every non-federal style guide is fairly consistent that en-dash is for range of numbers. One of the few outliers on en-dashes is for that Jan Tschichold's advice in his legendary 1948 guide to typographers to use the en-dash with spaces instead of the em-dash

This came up a lot in visa debates because only by knowing that the federal government approach (mostly via the GPO) is for en-dashes, no one would possibly guess that the visa is H–1B (hyphen) not H-1B (hyphen). Even worse that visa name references now repealed legislative organizing

On iPhone, press and hold the hyphen and then move right once for en-dash (–) and twice for em-dash (—)

000 0

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 17/04/2025

Looked this up out of curiosity and it's fascinating when states (here Ohio and Oregon) insist on terms no other state uses. What other examples are there of a state using a unique name for a common offense, procedure, or law?

040 4

Just cite Arkell v Pressdram and be done with it (google it!)

0110 11

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 17/04/2025

In keeping with the GPO style guide, the Supreme Court uses an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-) in MS–13 (so it's not MS-13). It's an odd quirk of federal style

2222 22

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 12/04/2025

If you want to really annoy a lawyer, just try citing bits from law reports like you would any other book chapter ;)

$Burger, Warren E. “Wisconsin v. Yoder.” \emph{United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court}, edited by Henry Putzel, Jr., vol. 406, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973, pp. 207–236. \end{hangparas}$

1110 11

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 29/03/2025

The official proclamation of Australia's dissolution is not befitting the great Commonwealth… so I re-typeset it! God save the King of Australia! Pathetic original below

161 6

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 16/03/2025

There's a lot of debate on the best list format for law. Some people like Roman (I,II, III or i, ii, iii), others alpha (a, b, c), others numeric (1, 2, 3). I, however, prefer the bra size method of listing, which I think is the clearest way to tabulate.

0105 10

Reposted by Legal Style Blog

Robert Sharp @robertsharp.bsky.social · 15/03/2025

Flipping through Family Law textbook, an area that necessarily has a lot of anonymised case. But there are no less than 57 citations with the title ‘Re: A’. Petition to adopt the @legalstyle.co.uk suggestion of deploying full throated pseudonyms in www.legalstyle.co.uk/2022/12/styl...

legalstyle.co.uk

Styling family cases

Don't put the generic titles in the styling

041 4

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 13/03/2025

A few excerpts from one of my favourite essays (always a delight to return to), L. Sprague de Camp’s “Language for Time Travellers”

010 1

Reposted by Legal Style Blog

Trite Law 🇬🇧 @tritelaw.bsky.social · 12/03/2025

'It is trite to say that merely preferring one party's case to that advanced by the other cannot, of itself, give rise to a sustainable claim of apparent bias.' In re Haberlin's Appl'n [2025] NIKB 13, ¶ 33, KBD per Humphreys J. www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NI...

bailii.org

Haberlin, Re Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 13 (27 February 2025)

032 3

Reposted by Legal Style Blog

The Green Bag @thegreenbag.bsky.social · 11/03/2025

A great judge, a true wordsmith, and an author any editor would enjoy working with.

082 8

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 11/03/2025

I **ADORE** this little article from Green Bag by a federal judge explaining how he first coined a word and then worked to use it in an opinion so it could make it into Black's Law Dictionary greenbag.org/v13n2/v13n2_...

24017 40

Reposted by Legal Style Blog

Michael Froomkin @mfroomkin.bsky.social · 10/03/2025

'Every cased is a story'....but this one is unusually convoluted and odd.

011 1

Reposted by Legal Style Blog

Scratched Tooth @keencritic.bsky.social · 10/03/2025

Just the beginning of a tale longer and more twisted than Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

011 1

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 10/03/2025

Quite an arresting opening line: 'This is an unusual probate claim in that the deceased says she is very much alive.' www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWH...

bailii.org

Ashimola & Anor v Samuel & Anor [2025] EWHC 502 (Ch) (10 March 2025)

23312 33

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 05/03/2025

No it's a much more prominent contract case!

000 0

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 05/03/2025

That's R v Dudley and Stephens but not what I meant with this!

100 1

Legal Style Blog @legalstyle.co.uk · 04/03/2025

Quiz: name the case from the AI generated image!

311 3

Someone accused of criminal contempt in the Delaware Court of Chancery has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of *equity*. See, e.g., State v. Klein, 123 A.2d 740 (Del. Ch. 1956).

020 2

That has been a barrier to me trying to expand my reading and get a sense of the Strugatsky bros. because they are clearly hugely important sf authors… but the mid 20th century translations leave a lot to be desired just as English (I don't speak Russian)

000 0

Library catalogues should not use academic diacritics like this, meaningless and confusing and bad for typeface support, for public listings. Associate the canonical academic transliteration with a name conforming to more standard Cyrillic-English renderings…

The reason that for attempted murder we only accept the intent to actaully kill someone is because attempts don't require any injury to take place. So it's absurd to hold someone who intended only to horrifically injure the victim liable for a crime that didn't happen and they didn't want

011 1

The reasoning is pretty sensible—if someone merely wanted to brutally stab and horrifically injure the victim, who then dies, clearly we should be able to prosecute the stabber for murder which is a predictable result of stabbing someone with the intent to horrifically injure.

It's absolutely true—intent is required for murder but the intent required is called "malice," meaning it is not the intent specifically to kill but rather the intent to either kill *or cause great bodily harm*

I hope that c lears things up; if not let me know!

For attempted murder, there can be zero consequences (if the person is stopped before even attacking the victim though clearly in cases like Sir Salman's there were awful consequences) so all we have is intent and thus we need to be tighter because attempted murder is stopping people trying to kill

So for actual murder, we look at the consequences and the intent. Because a likely consequence of great bodily injury is death, we can expand the intent since the purpose of criminalising murder is to stop violent deaths.

100 1

However, in attempted murder, where the victim is still alive (and for that matter might never have even been injured!), it would be absurd for someone who just wanted to cause great bodily injury to be arrested for attempting to do something he never intended to happen!

200 2

More specifically, the intent required for murder is "malice," meaning the intent to either kill or cause great bodily injury. That's good, because obviously someone who goes "I just wanted to brutally stab him" should still be convicted of murder if the victim bleeds out intent notwithstanding.

100 1

I recently finished Nabokov's Pnin, the first book of his that I've read, and, whilst I am very late to this party… wow, what an incredible writer. The awesome adjectives and alliteration alone are astounding!

381 8