Also known as: ex parte proceedings · ex-parte proceeding · ex-parte proceedings · ex parte · ex-parte
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A judicial proceeding conducted without notice to or participation by all parties. The absence of an opposing side requires heightened duties of candor from participants and strict limits on communications with the decision maker.
Elena Estrada's attorney contacted the judge directly about pending discovery disputes in her contract case. The judge considered the information and later ruled against the opposing party. The communication violated the prohibition on ex parte contacts concerning a pending matter.
Edward Everett sought an ex parte temporary restraining order against Equinox Energy. His lawyer knew of prior settlements that undercut the claimed irreparable harm but withheld the information. The tribunal later vacated the order after learning the omitted facts.
Ewan Eckhart filed an ex parte application in federal court seeking immediate injunctive relief against a state environmental commissioner. The proceeding advanced without notice to the officer because the relief targeted ongoing violations of federal law. The court granted the order after confirming the ex parte nature satisfied due-process limits.
Edith Eberhardt's counsel called the judge's chambers to reschedule a hearing date after opposing counsel failed to respond. The judge confirmed availability without discussing merits and promptly notified all parties. The contact qualified as an administrative exception.
Eduardo Enriquez's lawyer approached a seated juror during a recess to discuss evidence. The contact occurred without court authorization. The court declared a mistrial and sanctioned the lawyer for the ex parte communication.
Ella Emerson's attorney sought an emergency continuance by telephone. The judge verified that the call addressed only timing and that the opposing party would suffer no disadvantage. The judge then notified the other side and allowed a response.
The lawyer must disclose all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
A judge may do so when circumstances require it, the communication does not address substantive matters, the judge reasonably believes no party gains an advantage, and the judge promptly notifies all other parties and gives them an opportunity to respond.
It permits a federal court to hear a suit for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against a state officer to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law, treating the officer as stripped of state authority when acting unconstitutionally.
The judge must promptly notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide them an opportunity to respond.
…2014–NMSC–003, N. M. , 316 P. 3d 865 (2013) Garden State Equality v. Dow , 216 N. J. 314, 79 A. 3d 1036 (2013) Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institute , So. 3d , 2015 WL 892752 (Ala., Mar. 3, 2015) Appendix B State Legislation and Judicial Decisions Legalizing Same-Sex…