Talk:Maxims of equity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maxims of equity article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Trying to make some improvements 2 Typos and Commentary in the Forfeiture Section 3 Joke 3.1 Cut and pasted older version, including joke

[edit] Trying to make some improvements

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)

[edit] Typos and Commentary in the Forfeiture Section

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)

[edit] Joke

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:

• Equity taketh no shit. 68.17.156.140 00:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and pasted older version, including joke

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)