Last updated

In law, seriatim (Latin for "in series") indicates that a court is addressing multiple issues in a certain order, such as the order in which the issues were originally presented to the court.


A seriatim opinion describes an opinion delivered by a court with multiple judges, in which each judge reads his or her own opinion rather than a single judge writing an opinion on behalf of the entire court. Traditionally, judges read in order of reverse seniority, with the most junior judge speaking first. [1] In the United States, this practice was discontinued in favour of majority opinions contra the British tradition of separate opinions. [2]

In the United Kingdom

Most frequently used in modern times (when used at all) pleadings as a shorthand for "one by one in sequence". For example, in English civil cases, defence statements generally used to conclude with the phrase "save as expressly admitted herein, each allegation of the plaintiffs is denied as if set out in full and traversed herein seriatim." This formulation is now superfluous under the English Civil Procedure Rules, especially rule 16.5 (3)–(5). [3]

Also sometimes seen in older deeds and contracts as a more traditional way of incorporating terms of reference. For example "the railway by-laws shall apply to the contract as if set out herein seriatim."

It is sometimes found as part of the longer phrase brevatim et seriatim, meaning "briefly and in series".

The term is also used when replying to a communication that contains a number of points, issues or questions to denote that the responses are in the same order in which they were raised in the original document: "To deal with your queries seriatim..."

In England, use of the word, and other Latin phrases, has become less frequent in legal discourse as a result of the Woolf Reforms and, among other factors, efforts by groups such as the Plain Language Movement to promote the use of "plain English" in legal discourse.[ citation needed ]

In the United States

During the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall, 1801 to 1805, the practice of judicial opinions being delivered in seriatim was discontinued. It was restored by Justice William Johnson, who, from 1805 through 1833, wrote nearly half of the Supreme Court's dissenting opinions. [4] [5]

In 2009, Title III, Rule 15(a)(1) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (part of pretrial procedure) was amended to allow three changes in the time previously allowed to make one change. [6]

This provision will force the pleader to consider carefully and promptly the wisdom of amending to meet the arguments in the motion... and will expedite determination of issues that otherwise might be raised seriatim.

The right to make changes now ends 21 days after service of a motion. [6]

Actuarial usage

Actuarial calculations made in respect of a database (such as insurance policies or asset holdings) may be referred to as seriatim. This implies calculation results are produced for each database record explicitly, i.e. without model compression (data grouping) and before summation.

Related Research Articles

In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written statement of a party's claims or defenses to another party's claims in a civil action. The parties' pleadings in a case define the issues to be adjudicated in the action.

Judge Official who presides over court proceedings

A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a panel of judges. A judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers or solicitors of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling in the case based on their interpretation of the law and their own personal judgment. A judge is expected to conduct the trial impartially and, typically, in an open court.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases.

European Court of Justice Supreme court in the European Union, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice, formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Second most senior court in the English legal system

The Court of Appeal is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and second in the legal system of England and Wales only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court of Appeal was created in 1875, and today comprises 39 Lord Justices of Appeal and Lady Justices of Appeal.

In law, a judgment, also spelled judgement, is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Intermediate appellate courts in the state of New York

The Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court of the State of New York are the intermediate appellate courts in New York State. There are four Appellate Divisions, one in each of the state's four Judicial Departments.

A demurrer is a pleading in a lawsuit that objects to or challenges a pleading filed by an opposing party. The word demur means "to object"; a demurrer is the document that makes the objection. Lawyers informally define a demurrer as a defendant saying "So what?" to the pleading.

High Court of Justiciary Supreme criminal court in Scotland

The High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court in Scotland. The High Court is both a trial court and a court of appeal. As a trial court, the High Court sits on circuit at Parliament House or in the adjacent former Sheriff Court building in the Old Town in Edinburgh, or in dedicated buildings in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The High Court sometimes sits in various smaller towns in Scotland, where it uses the local sheriff court building. As an appeal court, the High Court sits only in Edinburgh. On one occasion the High Court of Justiciary sat outside Scotland, at Zeist in the Netherlands during the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, as the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. At Zeist the High Court sat both as a trial court, and an appeal court for the initial appeal by Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Judicature Acts United Kingdom legislation

The Judicature Acts are a series of Acts of Parliament, beginning in the 1870s, which aimed to fuse the hitherto split system of courts in England and Wales. The first two Acts were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, with a further series of amending acts.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body.

In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision.

Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state) Highest court in the U.S. state of Georgia

The Supreme Court of Georgia is the highest judicial authority of the U.S. state of Georgia. The court was established in 1845 as a three-member panel. Since 1896, the justices have been elected by the people of the state. The justices are currently elected in statewide non-partisan elections for six-year terms, with any vacancies filled through an appointment by the Governor.

In law, a joinder is the joining of two or more legal issues together. Procedurally, a joinder allows multiple issues to be heard in one hearing or trial and is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes. The term is also used in the realm of contracts to describe the joining of new parties to an existing agreement.

Montana Supreme Court Highest court in the U.S. state of Montana

The Montana Supreme Court is the highest court of the state court system in the U.S. state of Montana. It is established and its powers defined by Article VII of the 1972 Montana Constitution. It is primarily an appellate court which reviews civil and criminal decisions of Montana's trial courts of general jurisdiction and certain specialized legislative courts, only having original jurisdiction in a limited number of actions. The court's Chief Justice and six Associate Justices are elected by non-partisan, popular elections. The Montana Supreme Court meets in the Joseph P. Mazurek Building in Helena, Montana, the state's capital, an international style building completed in 1982 and named in the honor of former Montana Attorney General, Joseph P. Mazurek.

The law of the Republic of China as applied in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is based on civil law with its origins in the modern Japanese and German legal systems. The main body of laws are codified into the Six Codes:

Judicial system of Bhutan

The judicial system of Bhutan is the purview of the Royal Court of Justice, the judicial branch of the government of Bhutan under the Constitution of 2008. The judicial system comprises the Judicial Commission, the courts, the police, the penal code, and regulations on jabmi (attorneys).

Act of Sederunt Type of legislation made by the Court of Session in Scotland

An Act of Sederunt is secondary legislation made by the Court of Session, the supreme civil court of Scotland, to regulate the proceedings of Scottish courts and tribunals hearing civil matters. Originally made under an Act of the Parliament of Scotland of 1532, the modern power to make Acts of Sederunt is largely derived from the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. Since 2013, draft Acts have also been prepared by the Scottish Civil Justice Council and submitted to the Court of Session for approval.

Certificate of division Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

Plaint checking under Indian law by the Sheristadar Court is essentially a formal pre-admission scrutiny of the pleadings filed in law courts of India. The process is aimed at filtering out non-jurisdictional cases and getting other formal defects such as computation of Court fees and stamping of instruments, annexing spot map to the Plaint etc, rectified before the case is heard. In a Judgment the Bombay High court held that the trial court shall place such suits in objection category until the requirements of Order VII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied. Similar direction has been imparted by Delhi High Court in its court rule file procedure. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has prescribed procedure and rules for examination of Plaint in part C of its "Practice in the Trial of Civil Suits".


  1. Rotunda, Ronald D. (2017). "The Fall of Seriatim Opinions and the Rise of the Supreme Court". Retrieved 2022-02-02.
  2. Kahn, Paul W. (2019-03-06). "The "Seriatim Practice" of the Supreme Court". Yale University Press Blog. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
  3. "Content of defence 16.5 (3)–(5)". Statements Of Case – Civil Procedure Rules. Ministry of Justice UK. 10 September 2013.
  4. Oliver Schroeder, J. (1947). The Life and Judicial Work of Justice William Johnson, Jr. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 95(3), 344. doi : 10.2307/3309619
  5. Morgan, D. (1944). Mr. Justice William Johnson and the Constitution. Harvard Law Review,57(3), 328-361. doi : 10.2307/1335111
  6. 1 2 "United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title III, Rule 15". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. 2009. Retrieved 24 November 2013.