Talk:Non ultra petita

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-universality

Is this meant to describe situations where the plaintiff increases the amount claimed during the trial, to the extent the rules of procedure allow this? If yes, that's arguably not contrary to non ultra petita. Or can US courts really decide on their own to exceed the relief petitioned for, if they consider that there's enough evidence for this and the defendant had the opportunity to contest the increase considered by the court? Sandstein 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Somewhat to my surprise, the phrase "non ultra petita" (I searched on various portions of the longer maxim as well) does not appear from a Westlaw search to have been cited in any reported federal or state case anywhere in the US. So it's hard to say whether "the pleadings will be deemed amended to conform to the proof" types of rulings would be regarded as inconsistent with the maxim or not. I'll look for some further sources on this in the next few days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would be interesting to know how US law (and/or the common law in general) deals with this. I'm a continental lawyer and have little knowledge about US law, but I'd be surprised if US courts can and do go beyond what the parties ask (in some manner or at some time), in view of what I understand is the distinctly adversarial nature of US proceedings. (In continental European jurisdictions influenced strongly by the inquisitorial tradition, on the other hand, some procedures are expressly exempt from non ultra petita in order to protect the weaker party, e.g. divorce proceedings, or pleadings are read very extensively. Maybe I should mention this in the article, but I don't have sources of the required level of generality to hand.) Sandstein 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a related issue: Can punitive damages be awarded even if the plaintiff doesn't claim them? For example, if a copyright holder sues someone for a copyright violation and only claims compensatory damage of, let's say, 1000 dollars, can the court, in some cases, award him 100,000 or dollars? Or does punitive damage always require to be claimed?--SiriusB (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]