!-- Google Tag Manager (noscript) -->

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

 
LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

third opposition

Read a random definition: United States Institute of Peace

A quick definition of third opposition:

Third opposition is a type of legal action where a third party claims ownership or other rights to property that has been seized in a lawsuit. This claim is independent of the original lawsuit between the plaintiff and defendant. In simpler terms, it's when someone else says they own something that is being fought over in court.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Third opposition is a type of intervention in civil law, usually in a real-property case, where a third party claims ownership or other real right to seized property. This claim does not depend on the outcome of the original lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant.

For example, in Atkins v. Smith, a third party claimed ownership of a seized property in a real-property case. The claim did not depend on the outcome of the original lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant.

This type of intervention is different from other types of intervention, such as joining the plaintiff or defendant in claiming or resisting what is sought.

Example: In a real-property case, a third party claims ownership of a seized property. The third party's claim does not depend on the outcome of the original lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant. This is an example of third opposition.

This example illustrates how a third party can assert a claim of ownership or other real right to seized property in a civil lawsuit, even if they are not named as a party to the action. The third party's claim is independent of the outcome of the original lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant.

third-degree murder | third-party complaint

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
19:41
Yak I just saw your stats, the fuck are you worried about here
i have shitty ecs and have struck out with majority of schools really other than my baby gulc and washu
gulc my savior
@baddestbunny: I have a shirt that says twerkin for a gherkin
It was free merch
@AcousticUnequalYak: how have you struck out with the majority of schools already?
the cycle just started
[] baddestbunny
19:57
guys serious question
[] baddestbunny
19:57
With respect to graduate or professional school, are you or will you be in the first generation of (i) your immediate family, or (ii) the household(s) in which you grew up, to graduate from such a school?
[] baddestbunny
19:58
sorry that's not the question
1a2b3c4d26z
19:58
nope
[] baddestbunny
19:58
do you think non-custodial parent counts here?
[] baddestbunny
19:58
like they are immediate family but I didn't grow up with them
1a2b3c4d26z
19:58
Sure yea
Hmm. If this Q is on a law school application it depends on what constitutes immediate family.
1a2b3c4d26z
19:58
Feel like that's an inclusive or
[] baddestbunny
19:59
yeah I was trying to decide if it was meant to be inclusive
Oh wait the second part is household you grew up in. So, I think the answer would be yes.
[] baddestbunny
19:59
like my answer is no to the first one, yes to the second one
1a2b3c4d26z
19:59
I don't think a) anyone will find out whether you consider it inclusive nor b) care
1a2b3c4d26z
19:59
so go for it
1a2b3c4d26z
19:59
Not legal advice
[] baddestbunny
19:59
haha
windyMagician
20:03
i would say yes, if they wanted it to be inclusive they should have said and/or
windyMagician
20:04
this is like an lr question
[] baddestbunny
20:04
the or was italicized originally if that helps at all
1a2b3c4d26z
20:05
Then it's totally inclusive
[] baddestbunny
20:06
see that's what UVA says
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.