Numbers of Latin terms are used in legal terminology and legal maxims.

This is a short list of these legal Latin terms, which are wholly or substantially drawn from Latin.

AMICUS CURIAE Is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as friend of the court, that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties. CERTIORARI Is a legal term in Roman, English, and American law referring to a type of writ seeking judicial review. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of Latin certiorare, (to show, prove or ascertain). A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review. Certiorari is an action taken after sentencing by a defendant who seeks relief for some perceived error in his criminal trial. There are a number of such post-trial actions, their differences being potentially confusing, thus bearing some explanation. CORPUS DELICTI Is a term from Western jurisprudence which refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred before a person can be convicted of committing the crime. For example, a person cannot be tried for larceny unless it can be proven that property has been stolen. Likewise, in order for a person to be tried for arson it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary defines corpus delicti as the fact of a crime having been actually committed. CAVEAT EMPTOR Is the Latin term for Let the buyer beware. Generally caveat emptor is the property law doctrine that controls the sale of real property after the date of closing. Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, the buyer could not recover from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed latent defects

HABEAS CORPUS Is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. Rasul v. Bush is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 ruling on June 29, 2004, reversed a District Court decision, which held that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay. MANDAMUS A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means "we command" in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly". Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty. It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision. Mandamus may be a command to do an administrative action or not to take a particular action, and it is supplemented by legal rights. It must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it. The petitioner/defendant, Robert F. Allston, petitions the District Court of Appeal, Second District, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to order Charlie Green, Clerk of Court, to recognize the jurisdiction of the Second District Court of Appeal and process one or more notices of appeal now before him, as specified by this Court, regarding petitioner's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. Specifically, the petitioner shows this Court: I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION - This petition for mandamus is brought under article V of the Florida Constitution and under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030, 9.100 and other relevant authorities. (PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ROBERT F. ALLSTON, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ) The petitioner requests that this Court issue an order to show cause to the respondents and ultimately issue its writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Lee County, requiring the Court to recognize the jurisdiction of the 2nd District Court of Appeal and process such appeal or appeals as this Court may specify after examination of the facts and circumstances as set forth in this petition for writ of mandamus

MENS REA Is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.

PER CURIAM Is a ruling issued by an appellate court with multiple judges in which the decision rendered was made by the court acting as a whole, anonymously. In contrast to regular opinions, the decision does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision. Per curiam decisions are not the only type of decision that can reflect the opinion of the court. Other types of decisions can also reflect the opinion of the entire court, such as unanimous decisions, in which the opinion of the court is expressed with an author listed. The Latin term per curiam literally means by the court. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are usually not per curiam. Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices. Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam. Per curiam decisions tend to be brief in length, and usually deal with relatively non-controversial issues. The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion. Bush v. Gore is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on December 12, 2000. The case effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. In a per curiam decision, the Court in Bush v. Gore held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature. The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand.

RES JUDICATA Is the Latin term for a matter judged, and may refer to two things: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the term is also used to refer to the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion". In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter. The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res Judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

NON EST FACTUM Is a Latin term for it is not (my) deed. This is doctrine in contract law that allows a signing party to escape performance of the agreement. A claim of non est factum means that the signature on the contract was signed by mistake, without knowledge of its meaning, but was not done so negligently. Non est factum is difficult to claim. For example, failure to read a contract before signing it will not allow for non est factum. In Lloyds Bank v. Waterhouse (1990) a father acted as a guarantor to his sons debt when purchasing a farm. The father was illiterate and signed the bank document under the belief that he was acting as guarantor for the farm only., when the contract was actually for all the debt accumulated by his son. As he was illiterate, this was a mistake as to the document signed and the father was successful in claiming non est factum. the Latin term for in the absence. In legal use it usually pertains to a defendants right to present in court proceedings in a criminal trial. For more than 100 years, courts in United States have held that, according to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendants right to appear in person at the trial, as a matter of due process is protected under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946, amended in 1973, provides that a defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at the time of the plea, at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict and at the imposition of sentence.

UBERRIMA FIDES Is a Latin phrase meaning utmost good faith. It is the name of a legal doctrine which governs insurance contracts. This means that all parties to an insurance contract must deal in good faith, making a full declaration of all material pacts in the insurance proposal. This contrasts with the legal doctrine of caveat emptor (let the buyer beaware). Thus the insured must reveal the exact nature and potential of the risks that he transfers to the insurer, while at the same time the insurer must make sure that the potential contract fits the needs of, and benefits, the assured. A higher duty is exacted from parties to an insurance contract than from parties to most other contracts in order to ensure the disclosure of all material facts so that the contract may accurately reflect the actual risk being undertaken. The principles underlying this rule were stated by Lord Mansfield in the leading and often quoted case of Carter v. Boehm (1766). Insurance is a contract of speculation [] The special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed, lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only: the under-writer trusts to his representation, and proceeds upon confidence that he does not keep back any circumstances in his knowledge, to mislead the under-writer into a belief that the circumstance does not exists []. Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary. (MacGillivray & Parkington, 1988: para. 544)