Legal Dictionary of Pakistan
Quick lookup for English, Urdu, and Latin legal terms used in Pakistani jurisprudence.
A non posse ad non esse sequitur argumentum necessarie negative, licet non affirmative.
From impossibility to nonexistence the inference follows necessarily in the negative, though not in the affirmative.
A rescriptis valet argumentum
An argument from rescripts (i.e., original writs in the register) is valid.
Argument
1. A statement that attempts to persuade; esp., the remarks of counsel in analyzing and pointing out or repudiating a desired inference, for the assistance of a decision-maker. 2. The act or process of attempting to persuade. See oral argument; closing argument.
Argumentative
adj. 1. Of or relating to argument or persuasion <an argumentative tone of voice>. 2. Stating not only facts, but also inferences and conclusions drawn from facts <the judge sustained the prosecutor's objection to the argumentative question>. Argumentative instruction see jury instruction.
Argumentative question.
a question in which the examiner interposes a viewpoint under the guise of asking a question. ( this is considered an abuse of interrogation.
Argumentum
n. [latin] an argument. Pl. Argumenta.
Argumentum a contrario
[latin] an argument for contrary treatment.
Argumentum a divisione est fortissimum in jure
An argument based on a subdivision of the subject is most powerful in law.
Argumentum a ma;jori ad minus negative non valet; valet a converso
An argument from the greater to the lesser is of no force in the negative; conversely (in the affirmative) it is valid.
Argumentum a simili
[latin "argument from a like case"] an argument by analogy or similarity.
Argumentum a simili valet in lege
An argument by analogy (from a similar case) has force in law.
Argumentum ab auctoritate
[latin] an argument from authority (of a statute or case).
Argumentum ab auctoritate est fortissimum in lege
An argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law.
Argumentum ab impossibili
[latin] an argument from impossibility.
Argumentum ab impossibili plurimum valet in lege
An argument deduced from an impossibility has the greatest validity in law.
Argumentum ab inconaenienti
[latin] an argument from inconvenience; an argument that emphasizes the harmful consequences of failing to follow the position advocated.
Argumentum ab inconvenienti plurimum valet in lege
An argument drawn from what is unsuitable (or improper) has the greatest validity in law. Co. Litt. 66a.
Argumentum ad baculum
[latin] an argument depending on physical force to back it up.
Argumentum ad captandum
[latin] an argument appealing to the emotions of a crowd.
Argumentum ad crumenam
[fr. Latin Crumena "purse"] an argument appealing to the purse (or one's desire to save money).
Argumentum ad hominem
[latin "argument to the man"] an argument based on disparagement or praise of another in a way that obscures the real issue.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
[latin] an argument based on an adversary's ignorance of the matter in dispute.
Argumentum ad inaidiam
[latin] an argument appealing to one's hatreds or prejudices.
Argumentum ad judicium
[latin] an argument addressed to the judgment; a proof based on knowledge or probability.
Argumentum ad misericordiam
[latin] an argument appealing to pity.
Argumentum ad populum
[latin] an argument appealing to the crowd.
Argumentum ad rem
[latin] an argument on the point at issue.
Argumentum ad verecundiam
[latin] an argument appealing to the listener's modesty; an argument based on the opinions of people who are considered authorities.
Argumentum baculinum
[fr. Latin baculus "a rod or scepter"] an argument appealing to force.
Argumentum ex concesso
[latin] an argument based on an earlier admission by the adversary.
Argumentum ex silentio
[latin] an argument from silence - i.e., based on the absence of express evidence to the contrary.
Incommodum non solvit argumentum
An inconvenience does not solve (or demolish) an argument.
Primo executienda est verbi vis, ne sermonis vitio obstruatur oratio, sive lex sine argumentis
The force of a word is to be first examined, lest by the fault of diction the sentence be destroyed or the law be without arguments.
Quae propter necessitatem recepta sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi
Things that are accepted as a matter of necessity ought not to be brought into the argument. Dig. 50.17.162.
Reargument
n. The presentation of additional arguments, which often suggest that a controlling legal principle has been overlooked, to a court (usu. an appellate court) that has already heard initial arguments. - reargue, ub. Cf REHEARING.
argumentative instruction
An instruction that assumes facts not in evidence, that singles out or unduly emphasizes a particular issue, theory, or defense, or that otherwise invades the jury's province regarding the weight, probative value, or sufficiency of the evidence.
closing argument
In a trial, a lawyer's final statement to the judge or jury before deliberation begins, in which the lawyer requests the judge or jury to consider the evidence and to apply the law in his or her client's favor. ( Usu. in a jury trial, the judge afterwards instructs the jury on the law that governs the case. -Also termed closing statement; final argument; jury summation; summing up.
final argument
See CLOSING ARGUMENT,
golden-rule argument.
A jury argument in which a lawyer asks the jurors to reach a verdict by imagining themselves or someone they care about in the place of the injured plaintiff or crime victim. ( Because golden-rule arguments ask the jurors to become advocates for the plaintiff or victim and to ignore their obligation to exercise calm and reasonable judgment, these arguments are widely condemned and are considered improper in most states.
oral argument
An advocate's spoken presentation before a court (esp. an appellate court) supporting or opposing the legal relief at issue. "[T]he oral argument is the one chance for you (not for some chance-assigned mere judge) to answer any questions you can stir any member of the court into being bothered about and into bothering with, and the one chance to sew up each such question into a remembered point in favor .... In any but freak situations, oral argument is a must." Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals 240 (1960).