Also known as: oretenus · orally · by word of mouth
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An adverbial phrase denoting that a legal act or presentation occurs orally rather than in writing. It applies when a court or party proceeds by spoken statements, evidence, or agreements instead of formal documents.
Orlando Okafor and Oceanview Properties discussed lease terms for a warehouse during a phone call lasting under one year. They agreed on rent and duration without signing any document. When a dispute arose over possession, the court recognized an oral landlord-tenant relationship under the controlling statute of frauds.
Odessa Okada received notice that her need-based assistance would end. At the pre-termination proceeding she appeared in person, presented testimony, and cross-examined the caseworker. The impartial decisionmaker relied solely on the evidence given orally at that hearing.
Otto Osman and Outback Mining negotiated an eight-year lease orally after exchanging a signed letter of interest. Otto presented the agreed terms by spoken statements to the court when a dispute arose. The court enforced the lease on the basis of the ore tenus presentation.
Orla O'Malley told Orion Technologies she wished to transfer her contract rights to a third party. She made the statement directly to the obligor without any writing. The manifestation of intent effected a valid assignment under the governing rule.
Oliver Okeke and Orbit Communications formed an oral agreement for services. Weeks later Oliver appeared in court and orally summarized the terms on the record. The subsequent spoken confirmation satisfied the statute of frauds even though it was made after the contract.
Octavia Okonkwo sought an abortion at a clinic. The physician orally explained the procedure, risks, and alternatives twenty-four hours before performing it. The spoken disclosure satisfied the statutory informed-consent mandate.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View caseIt means that a statement, motion, or evidence is presented orally rather than in a written filing. Courts often accept oral argument or testimony when the rules permit spoken presentation on the record.
Yes. A judge may state findings and conclusions orally on the record at the close of evidence. The announcement must still explain the factual resolutions and legal reasoning so that appellate review remains possible.
Yes. A party may argue that the evidence does not support the findings even if it never requested written findings or moved to amend them in the trial court. The rules expressly preserve sufficiency review regardless of post-trial motions.
Due process requires an evidentiary hearing that includes the opportunity to present evidence orally and to confront adverse witnesses. An ore tenus hearing satisfies this requirement when it allows live testimony and cross-examination before benefits end.
Separate signed and unsigned writings may be read together to satisfy the statute even if neither document alone is complete. The oral agreement supplies the missing terms that the combined documents confirm.
…opportunity [for the recipient] to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally"; (3) retained counsel, if desired; (4) an "impartial" decisionmaker; (5) a decision resting "solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing"; (6) a statement of reasons for…