Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 September 29

= September 29 =

Comeback cases
about US federal appellate litigation, mentions:


 * ... outliers that might skew the results, such as expedited cases or comeback cases that might require some of the original panel.

I've found a few other web hits about comeback cases. It seems to mean that a case gets appealed, the appellate court decides something and remands to the district court, there is a new decision by the district court and that gets appealed, so the case is back for a second visit to the same appellate court. But I'm not sure.

The disamb page Comeback doesn't say anything about this usage, and neither does Wiktionary.

Does anyone want to try to fix it? Thanks.

2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the term is not reserved for court cases but can be used in any context where issues coming in, needing some action or decision, are referred to as "cases", Then a case handled before, coming back for further action or reconsideration, may be called a "comeback case". --Lambiam 06:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As a practicing American lawyer, I had never heard of a comeback case. From context, it appeared to mean an appellate case that, following a decision by a three-judge panel, for some reason is heard again by the same or a largely similar panel. As it turns out, that is essentially correct.  It is a term of art in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where comeback cases are governed by General Order 3.6.  John M Baker (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, thanks both. John M Baker, nice find. That explains why all the web search hits that I found were from the 9th circuit. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Certain cases in UK/Ireland
I wish to get a list of cases in United Kingdom — from 1910 to 1920 — that employed the precipitin test as a medico-legal procedure. What is an easy way to go about it — is there some grand-database where I can search for the keyword? I did read this book (p. 60 onward) which notes the test to be pretty established by the late 1920s. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC) It would be of course rather improbable to easily find listed cases in which the procedure might have been applied, for various reasons, without a definitive expectation of having it particularly convincing, such that would nonetheless have contributed to the emergent notion of a pretty well established procedure. A series of tests may to be executed at one level with conclusions to be acknowledged by an established authority, from a different view, maybe a posteriori ( looking up the Police Journal - again, they were obviously finding relief at the obvious that in many cases they would soon be back at the hair-and-microscope option again). --Askedonty (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still not too complicated, but you may have to work around and combine several of the associated notions for such a diluted piece of speciality. I would be looking for introductions similar to this (Ion-electrode based immunoassay and antibody-antigen precipitin reaction monitoring: namely "immunoassay" as a useful more generic keyword wrongly attributed imo, there seem to be found of it occurences in the 1940s, before the 1960s, besides I do not see well how much its object differs from the "immunological test" here in the former '20s). Then I did not find a database, only after some 1902 courtroom's enthusiasm a notable January 1910 communication by Dr Edmund Joseph McWeeney,, claiming two definite cases, one exonerating, the other unrelentingly incriminating: the next date being a Massachusetts illegal deer game 1917 enquiry in which it was proven that a remaining piece of animal was deer, not cow. Maybe a temporary prudent moratorium was in place in the 1910s until the mid-1920s publications made more available and convincing the details of a highly technical novel field. For an insight about the improbability of a hit during the related era, I do see , or.
 * You will probably be interested however by Katherine D. Watson's (Fellow of the Royal Historical Society) Medicine and Justice: Medico-Legal Practice in England and Wales, 1700-1914 (2020) --Askedonty (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Royal Prerogative (UK) — Military Powers
Does the British sovereign have to directly issue orders to the military (on the advice of the Prime Minister)? Or is the Prime Minister given some kind of ongoing authority to issue military orders?

It seems in a crisis, it might be timeconsuming if the PM wanted to quickly have the military do something, but first they had to get hold of the King to issue the official orders. 2407:4D00:3C00:7E66:F130:43AD:7C5D:9FEF (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe that the British monarch is not directly involved in military operations. Any residual reserve powers in that area were, as I understand it, delegated to the Defence Council of the United Kingdom by the Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964. Political oversight of the Defence Council is by the National Security Council.
 * A proclamation from the monarch is required to "call-out" (i.e. mobilise) the Volunteer Reserves, if:
 * (a) if it appears to Her [sic] that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has arisen; or
 * (b) in the event of an actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom.
 * However, in the case of lesser conflicts, the Secretary of State for Defence can call-out those who have accepted a "special agreement" making them liable for up to 12 months of active service if required.  Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Years ago, someone at the Reference Desk pointed out to me that the King doesn't have even a ceremonial role in many affairs of state. See Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2015_February_28; there are commissioners who can grant assent, and certain officials are empowered to issue Letters patent granting assent.  (It looks like the King has much less role in the government process in his senior realm than his governors-general do in the King's junior realms.)  If the formality of granting assent can be devolved on officials, it wouldn't at all be awkward also to devolve the formality of issuing military orders on other officials.  Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Royal assent is given in the name of the Queen: the formula is La Reyne le veult ("the Queen wishes it").  Bagehot W, The English constitution (1867), London, 1993, explains what she can do - disband the army; engage a limited number of men; dismiss all the officers; dismiss the sailors; sell all warships and naval stores; make war and peace; make every parish a "university"; dismiss most of the civil servants; pardon all offenders [1867, 'Introduction' and pp. 287-288].   The red boxes she had respite from only on Christmas Day, although they don't arrive on Easter Sunday either.   The Counsellors of State are empowered to act in the absence or incapacity of the Sovereign; there are four of them and they usually work in pairs.   As they are the first four adults in the line of succession to the throne, who are currently mainly elderly or out of the country, more were appointed in December.   The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who is also the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, currently Antonia Romeo, heads the Crown Office, which drafts documents and sends them to the Palace.   Some of these are authenticated by the Royal sign-manual (the formula is "Given under Our hand at...on...in the...year of Our reign), others by letters patent.   The Queen has to approve the appointment of senior clergy and other church matters; she also appoints the prime minister and summons, prorogues and dissolves parliament.   She is advised by her Privy Council.   A royal proclamation or other act may be published in the London Gazette.
 * Charles is now in deep trouble as it appears that he is attempting to deny his subjects access to his courts.  A Freedom of Information request to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (no. 230901052) has resulted in the disclosure that a litigant filed suit in the High Court claiming that he and Camilla are not married; he then appointed a "super smart lawyer" expert in the drafting of High Court forms to the palace staff and the court office wrote to the litigant enclosing a form for signature and return in the form of a declaration that the case had no prospect of success - if the form was not returned, the accompanying letter threatened, "no action will be taken and your papers will be placed in the miscellaneous box."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7B:10C:3200:A91E:DD42:64CF:3BED (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.116.163 (talk)

Sankebetsu brown bear incident
The village head that year was Ōkawa Yosakichi. According to his third son Japanese page, he was already died in 1946. Can you find his birth and death's dates, his wife, his other children, and when he began his career? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.116.93 (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)