Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal technicality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal technicality

• Delete - This article does nothing productive, and has virtually no potential to be an informative article in the future. The term "legal technicality" is either:
  • (1) meaningless in that if it were written from a NPOV it would encompass the whole of law and jurisprudence in every country on the planet; or
  • (2) it becomes, at it presently is, inherently POV in the sense that well-reasoned and time-tested legal principles are seen as unnecessary complexities that normal folks shouldn't need to be bothered with when they may need to be in court for some reason, or alternately
  • (3) the article as titled is inherently a POV that the exercise of a person's legally permitted rights in a court of law are mere excuses for guilty people to get off scot-free. ....Kenosis 01:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the article, which seems perfectly informative to me in describing precisely what a legal technicality is. IMHO, the nomination strays more into POV than does the article. Regardless of the nom's opinion, there are many legal principles, however time tested or well reasoned, which are viewed as "technicalities" by people all the way up to the White House. There's a strong revisionist streak on Wikipedia, I recognize, but there's a difference between how we want the public to perceive things and how they actually do, and a valid encyclopedia should reflect the latter more than the former. RGTraynor 02:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: " there are many legal principles, however time tested or well reasoned, which are viewed as "technicalities" by people all the way up to the White House." Note carefully the use of the words "viewed as 'technicalities'" in this statement just made here. Are you actually asserting that the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be brought in line with the fact that anyone who disagrees with another party's use of the procedural law to stop them from doing what they want in court, they almost universally call it "based on a technicality"??...Kenosis 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I am asserting that the article should be kept. I agree that aside from anything else, people do blame many legal results they don't like on "technicalities," and that mentioning the syndrome would suit the article just fine. RGTraynor 04:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This has the potential to be a good article. I note that the U.S. Supreme Court has used the phrase "legal technicality" or "legal technicalities" in at least 13 opinions which indicates that it is potentially a meaningful concept. [1] --Metropolitan90 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - fair name for an article, but it could use a cleanup. - Richardcavell 04:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:A general analysis of the theme(s) and content of this article,, starting with the first two paragraphs: Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Paragraph 1:"The term legal technicality refers to the technical niceties and exactitudes of legal procedure, which is divided into criminal procedure and civil procedure. The term technicality is actually not a term of art in the law (fish describing water) and is rarely used by lawyers, unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients."...04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"technical niceties"? what on earth is that as a definition? "Fish describing water" what on earth does that mean? Where is the source for a statement such as "rarely used by lawyers" and where is the source for "unless they are trying to explain legal procedure to lay clients"?

• • Paragraph 2, Sentence 1:”Defenses based on technicalities are known as "procedural defenses." ...04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(1)Say an old business associate takes you (or a friend or relative of yours) to court claiming that in 1956 a contract was broken and you owe them money for it. You assert the procedural defenses of laches and expiration of the statute of limitations, and the judge dismisses the case. The old business associate now goes to the press and says “it was dismissed on a legal technicality.” Are you convinced that the assertion of procedural defenses in this case are “legal technicalities”?

(2)Say you are arrested, hauled off to jail, not permitted a phone call, and not informed of what the charges are against you. Finally you get to court two years later and tell your story through your court appointed attorney who just met you, and are fortunate enough to have a ‘’competent’’ attorney who, with evidence and argument, persuades the judge that your version of events is factually correct. Note that all your arguments here are “procedural defenses”. The judge releases you. Have you gotten off on “legal technicalities”? ... Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Pargraph 2, Sentence 2: “It is often used in a pejorative sense to denote aspects of legal procedure which, if not attended to or followed, can change the outcome of a legal proceeding in ways seemingly contrary to the interests of justice.” ... 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the use of the words “seemingly contrary to justice” as they are very telling of what is meant when people use the words “legal technicality” in public discourse. What the Wikipedia article on Legal technicality is saying is, in effect, that when people don’t agree with the outcome, they derisively refer to the cause of the “unjust” outcome as “based on a legal technicality” or “because of a legal technicality”. Meanwhile, the opposing party goes to the press and says “Thank God justice was done.” ... Kenosis 04:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Metropolitan90, thanks for the link! I should interrupt the comment/analysis of content to report that the U.S. Supreme Court's use of the informal phrase "legal technicalities" over the last century (13 times minus two duplicates and one quote from a newspaper = 10 times) are as follows. All of them are used in a non-definitional way to refer to the idea of merely "complexities or technical aspects of the law"... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • (1) “The function of counsel as a guide through complex legal technicalities long has been recognized by this Court.” (U.S. v. Ash, 1973)
  • (2) ”Furthermore, during the federal habeas corpus hearing Davis showed his awareness of legal technicalities.”(footnote in Davis v. North Carolina, 1966)
  • (3) ”If recovery were denied in this case, the railroads, by the simple expedient of doing each other's work, could tie their employees up in legal technicalities over the proper railroad to sue for injuries and perhaps remove from coverage of the Act a significant area of railroad activity.”(Shenker v. Baltimore and Ohio R.Co., 1963)
  • (4) “Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices." British Transport Comm'n v. United States, 354 U.S. 129, 139 .” (CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO. v. BARGE FBL-585, 1960)
  • (5) Redundant quote:“Admiralty practice, which has served as the origin of much of our modern federal procedure, should not be tied to the mast of legal technicalities it has been the forerunner in eliminating from other federal practices." (British Transport Comm'n v. United States, 1957).
  • (6) “When the Congress deliberates over this problem, as it often has, it does not worry about the passing of title or other legal technicalities.” (KERN-LIMERICK, INC. ET AL. v. SCURLOCK, 1954)
  • (7) “by substituting practical, business conceptions for the previous hairsplitting legal technicalities encrusted upon the 'found'-'present'-'carrying-on-business' sequence, the Court yielded to and made effective Congress' remedial purpose.” (UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, 1948)
  • (8) Redundant quote: “Thus, by substituting practical, business conceptions for the previous hairsplitting legal technicalities encrusted upon the 'found'- 'present'-' carrying-on-business' sequence, the Court yielded to and made effective Congress' remedial purpose. (U.S. V. SCOPHONY CORP. OF AMERICA, 1948)
  • (9) “Legal technicalities doubtless afford justification for our pretense of ignoring plain facts before us, facts upon which a man's very life or liberty conceivably could depend.” (CARTER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS, 1946)
  • (10) “We shall assume that the statement, 'judicial instance and interpretative procedure ... even go out to find, every possible technicalit of the law to protect the defendant ... and nullify prosecution,' refers to the quashing of the rape indictments as well as other condemned steps. The comment of the last two paragraphs evidently includes these dismissals as so-called legal technicalities.” (PENNEKAMP v. STATE OF FLA., 1946)
  • (11) “Yet if legal technicalities rather than practical considerations are to decide that question it should be noted that the defendants were payee-indorsers of the checks.” (KANN v. U.S., 1944)
  • (12) “After the making of the consent decree and the deposit of the money in court, the situation of this case was substantially that of an interpleader suit after the making of a decree for interpleader and the dismissal of the stakeholder from the cause, with the issue as between the conflicting claimants limited by stipulation to the determination of the amount 'justly due' from the one to the other. That question, of course, was and is to be decided according to the equities of the claimants as between themselves, without regard to legal technicalities.” (MCGOWAN v. PARISH, 1915)
  • (13) “In the News, published the evening of March 19, there was an editorial reviewing the local proceedings, which concluded: 'All of this delay is aggravating to the community. The people of Chattanooga believe that Johnson is guilty, and that he ought to suffer the penalty of the law as speedily as possible. If by legal technicality the case is prolonged and the culprit finally escapes, there will be no use to plead with a mob here if another such crime is committed. Such delays are largely responsible for mob violence all over the country.'”(U.S. v. SHIPP, 1909)

The last use is the kicker here, as it is a quote from a newspaper. All these uses of legal technicalities by the Supreme Court refer to only one thing, which is in informal reference to "technicalities of the law” or “anything in the law that is highly technical” including substantive law, procedural law--everything technical. That is properly the subject of the article on law, and not the subject of a separate article on legal technicalities I would think. ... Kenosis 05:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not a legal dictionary. Ted 06:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable term. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 07:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – the article can (and should) be improved, but I see no grounds for deletion. The quotations provided by Kenosis show several good examples of the term clearly being used as commonly understood, and not just "anything in the law that is highly technical". --Lambiam^Talk 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An article 'not being good' is no grounds for deleting it - only if it does not have the potential to become good is it deletable in my opinion. But as above it is a notable legal term and therefore has potential. THE KING 15:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - important term related to any kind of legislation, would need good examples from experts - Skysmith 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable term, expand it, word is more than a dicdef. --Terence Ong 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Considering the point of view of a young person who encountered the phrase "legal technicality" for the first time, an explaination would be valuable. Should it be found in an encyclopedia or a dictionary? An encyclopedia offers the possiblity of fairly extended discussion of illustrative cases, so there is good reason to include the term in an encyclopedia. Gerry Ashton 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up, including use of the research done by Kenosis above. GRBerry 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean as above, not that I think it'll do any good. Few people ever go back and clean such articles anyway. --Agamemnon2 11:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The correct content is a dictdef. The current content is irredeemably biased. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.