Talk:Subpoena ad testificandum

Article length
This article is way too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.68.45 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 April 2008


 * I agree. Also, very large sections of it are not directly relevant and appear to have been written for somebody's school paper.  JonathanFreed (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article contents
The contents of this article, especially toward the end, are highly awkward. This article is significant and requires immediate editing to reduce fluency problems and non sequitors.Andy85719 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are also some problems with regional focus being on the United States in the last half, I think a large amount of the problems here (Length, word usage, ect) could be limited by the elimination of everything after Subpeona in the United States, and replaced with a 3-4 paragraph general writeup entitled "Modern Usage" or something similar. That said I am no expert in this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.239.106 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, there are parts which sound odd and are not clear at all or only after reading them several times, like: Criminal process as ruse ... In general, service of a process upon a non-resident will be set aside where the criminal proceedings are instituted against him in bad faith, or as a ruse or pretext for getting him into the jurisdiction in order to serve him with civil process. It's not an explanation of Criminal process as a ruse, although the title suggests this, and all of a sudden appears a non-resident (main topic in that section). DD 07 February 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.20.115 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Too many Relateds
There are way to many links at the bottom of the page, of subjects with little or no relation to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.52.221 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just took out the ones that already had inline Wikilinks, then supplied inline Wikilkinks to a few more before deleting their Relateds. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

praecipe quod reddat
'praecipe' means 'order (him to give back)'. If the passive form is required, it has to be 'praecipi', but this would make no sense. If lawyers insist on using Latin phrases, they might take the trouble to learn what they mean. It would benefit everyone concerned in legal processes if the language used were simply and simple English Pamour (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC).