Skip to content
NeCede's

Maxim 1.5.23

Extremities or subtleties of law are not law.

Apices juris non sunt jura.

Source: Co. Litt. 304b; 10 Co. 126; Wing. Max. 19; Broom, Max. 188; Weisman, 71hh Difficulty 1/5 — Foundational

Explanation

Hair-splitting technical arguments that pervert the clear purpose of a rule are to be rejected — the law is substance, not sophistry.

Where this applies

  • A lawyer makes a hair-splitting technical argument to evade the clear purpose of a rule.
  • Someone uses an extreme technicality to win a case on a point nobody intended.

Legal domains

interpretationprocedural

See also

Cite this maxim

NeCede Max. 1.5.23 — Extremities or subtleties of law are not law. — Co. Litt. 304b; 10 Co. 126; Wing. Max. 19; Broom, Max. 188; Weisman, 71hh (Apices juris non sunt jura.)

Found an error? Suggest a correction →