Talk:Motion (legal)

message: I've tagged this article as needing an expert, because it's not obvious if it only deals with U.S. law. Silverhelm 07:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

message: I really think we need a paralegal or lawyer to add depth to the various motions and add better examples.   17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motions, detail 

message: This info should be available but it is not to be found.  Exactly what happens with a MtD?
Party 1: Files MtD
Party 2: Files Opposition to MtD
Party 1: Files Reply to Opposition to MtD
Party 2: Files Response to Reply to Opposition to MtD
Party 1: Files Yet Another Reply to Response to Reply to Opposition to MtD
Party 2: Files Yet Another Response to Reply to Response to Reply to Opposition to MtD
Party 1: Files Again with the reply to Yet Another Reply to Response to Reply to Opposition to MtD
Party 2: Files Again with the reply to Again with the reply to Yet Another Response to Reply to Response to Reply to Opposition to MtD
So how long does this silly game go?  Just how many steps are there before the judge says, "Enough!  Stop filing responses to replies."
I've looked online 3 times for two hours each and that info seems impossible to find.  Someone please post the limitations on responses to replies to MtDs.  Thanks!
:Sorry, no sane lawyer will give you that information for free, unless they work for your local legal aid agency.  It takes four months of studying civil procedure in law school, two months of studying for the bar exam, and three years of actively practicing law to understand how motion practice works in the context of the entire justice system.  Good luck.--Coolcaesar (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steps to a MtD ?? 

message: What is the terminology for a judge accepting a motion and for a judge rejecting a motion?
108.56.212.179 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing info 

message: Moving this article was exactly the wrong approach under Wikipedia policy.  The more appropriate approach would have been to tag this article as requiring expansion to deal with motions in other jurisdictions that use them (e.g., Australia or Canada). Most other jurisdictions don't use motions or don't use them as much as U.S. courts do.   --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So just tag and expand it. Apokrif (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't respond to the concern I raised---it shouldn't have been moved in the first place! --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also need to note that Apokrif's point makes zero sense in light of the ongoing editor retention crisis (which is getting more and more attention from the tech press). At this point, all edits need to be able to stand alone on their own as defensible---no one is likely to fix them down the road since Wikipedia has consistently been unable to increase the number of active editors.  The encyclopedia is full of half-complete messes like this, which are weakening its reliability and integrity (and make me wonder about Apokrif's integrity as well).  As it is clear that no one has the interest in fixing this mess, I will be proposing in a few months that this article be moved back to Motion (law). --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this article moved? 

message: Well, the title says 'Motion in United States law' and then there's a notice saying that the article deals primarily with the US? It may be quite amusing *muffled laugh*, but in my opinion, someone should clarify this. Thanks =3
SebastianAmor (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no (longer) any such notice and a US-specific category has been added, so everything is right. Apokrif (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise Template error? 

message: This article should never have been moved to begin with. The correct title for a motion in many other countries is "application."  That topic can be dealt with in a separate article under that title. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved it back 

message: A motion is an application for a court order.  The case law is very clear on this. Any objections before I clean this up? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a train wreck 

message: A motion to get someone classified with doc quicker Country Zack (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion