Also known as: ex-parte proceedings · ex parte proceeding · exparte proceedings · ex parte · ex-parte
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial proceeding conducted without notice to or participation by an opposing party. Such proceedings are permitted only in limited circumstances and trigger heightened disclosure obligations to prevent unfair advantage.
Esther Eisenberg served as a holdout juror in a federal bribery trial. The judge summoned her to chambers alone to discuss her work schedule and ability to continue deliberating. Defense counsel later learned of the private meeting and raised the issue on appeal.
Emanuel Escobar filed a verified complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of Echo Systems. He appeared before the court without notifying opposing counsel and disclosed both favorable and unfavorable facts about irreparable harm. The court granted the order after the ex parte presentation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Eduardo Enriquez sued a state environmental commissioner in federal court seeking prospective injunctive relief to halt ongoing violations of federal water-quality standards. The complaint named only the commissioner and requested future compliance measures. The Eleventh Amendment did not bar the action.
Esme Ellington's lawyer contacted the court ex parte to reschedule a hearing date after a medical emergency. The judge confirmed that the call addressed only timing and would not affect any substantive issue. The judge promptly notified all parties of the conversation and gave them an opportunity to respond.
Erika Echevarria's counsel attempted to speak privately with a juror during deliberations about the juror's work conflict. The court had not authorized any such contact by law or order. The attempted communication violated the prohibition on ex parte juror contacts during the proceeding.
Edith Eberhardt's attorney called the court ex parte to request an emergency continuance due to a sudden family medical crisis. The judge confirmed that the communication concerned only scheduling and created no procedural or substantive advantage for any party. The judge immediately notified opposing counsel of the substance of the call.
A judge may do so only when circumstances require it and the communication does not address substantive matters. The judge must reasonably believe that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage. The judge must also promptly notify all other parties of the substance of the communication and give them an opportunity to respond.
The lawyer must inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. This duty continues through the conclusion of the proceeding.
Yes. A suit for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief may be brought in federal court against a state officer to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law or to require future compliance, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.
The judge must promptly notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide them with 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…