Talk:Writ

message: yeah, hi, how about a pronunciation..?! stick to what you preach, "intellectuals"!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.2.107 (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There's vandalism on the front page in line 1, in Thai characters I think. Also, I'm assuming that the first paragraph of user-created text is not meant to be there, but I'm not sure. Obviously vandalism has been here before, as shown in a post below from 2007 (Wow!) I also think due to a lack of clarification and lack of quality that a moderator would like to come in here. AWwikipedia "Eat more nachos!" (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Removed graffiti with a reference to n*****mania dot com ~~CatCube  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.196.109 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I have twice reverted an attempt to make the definition of a writ point to "court order". This is because, in general, writs are not court orders as defined in the court order article. The best example -- and one referred to in the article -- is a writ of summons to Parliament, which is not an "official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges)" in any sense. Its true that historically most writs originate from what might be described as a court, but that would be a mis-analysis in the modern sense of the word. So, many writs came from the chancery, but they were not made as proclamations of judges, they were administrative actions of clerks in chancery. Some writs that still exist (or existed until very recently in England and Wales) were of that kind. So many writs of execution could be obtained administratively from a court without intervention of a judge. Please do not revert again without discussion here. Francis Davey 08:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court orders

message: :The term 'writ' has now largely passed into disuse in English law.
True enough, but what might be worth mentioning is that it certainly hasn't passed into informal disuse, and nor has it disappeared from the media - partly for fairly obvious reason that "writ" is much shorter for headline-writers, but it's still seen in body text as well. This BBC story, dated 2006-05-30, is a good example. Loganberry (Talk) 12:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disuse in England 

message: the wiki wording sort of assumes you already know what a writ is which is unfortunate. start the US law section with a brief definition of what a writ is. I deduced that it was a court order of sorts but it was not clearly stated 85.83.19.103 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a writ 

message: This sounds like a joke to me (a cute one) but I moved it to talk unless someone can find a citation that this rewording was attempted RJFJR (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to talk

message: There is a section 'other writs' but it isn't clear which jurisdictions use these.  RJFJR (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved them under US because the section on English law says they have eliminated the profusion of writs and the other section is Indian law which has its won list (and several of the types of writs listed are ones I've seen mentioned in reading WP articles on US court proceedings.) RJFJR (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of them remain usable in the English court system. The main clean up was of original writs, although others have also been tidied up. Many of these writs are historic though and have their origin in English law so some more reorganisation (or explanation) may be helpful. I nearly fell of my chair reading about Ne exeat republica though. Americans can be so cutely quaint. Francis Davey (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Other writs

message: There appears to by an omission or typo in the 5th bullet point of this section.
The United States district courts normally follow state- in the United States federal courts but are almost never used in practice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdyornot (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Law 

message: All three images on this page are of the same writ, one of which is used twice. It would be nice if additional documents were added, in particular to make the redundant use of one image unnecessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.30.126.28 (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: It goes way too deep too fast into specific examples on what is a notoriously difficult topic.  It needs to start with the high-level, big picture overview: A writ is a formal written order, historically issued pursuant to the authority of the English sovereign.  It was originally developed as an instrument of the English administrative state.  However, the Crown also allowed private litigants to purchase writs to use against each other--that is, allowing private parties to invoke the authority of the King to summon others to the royal courts to face justice--thereby giving rise to the use of writs as a core component of English procedural law.  Thus, any discussion of writs must distinguish between writs issued in the course of government administration and writs issued in litigation in the courts. 
At some point this article needs to be drastically revised but I don't have the time to do that right now. Coolcaesar (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess