Cease and desist?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Doublet, not couplet:

Couplet

[Little_Nemo]

As others have said cease and desist do have distinct meanings. Cease means to stop if you’re doing it now and desist means to not do it in the future. There are cases where a distinction is made. For example, let’s say the police stop you when you’re driving with an expire inspection. You made be told you can drive your vehicle home but not to drive it anywhere else. That’s being told to desist but not to cease. Or let’s say you get thrown out of a movie theatre for being rowdy but you’re not banned from future showings at the theatre. That’s being told to cease but not desist.

[Tom_Tildrum]

An illustration of the difference between breaking and entering.

[Kenm]

@robert_columbia

Only if you do depose and say that you will covenant and agree to obey all of the terms and conditions by and between the parties that make and enter into this contract, which shall have sole and exclusive power and authority over all goods and chattels and amounts that are due and payable and bind and obligate the parties and their heirs and successors from now and henceforth, that you will at no time engage in lewd and lascivious conduct of whatever kind and nature, and will pay due care and attention not to aid and abet acts that that are not appropriate and proper or that would render the contract that has been made and entered into null and void.

You forgot the “That’ll be $350.37, please.”

[TriPolar]

@Kenm

You forgot the “That’ll be $350.37, please.”

Did you time slip back to the 70s or something? That’ll run you at least a grand today.

[Kenm]

@TriPolar

Did you time slip back to the 70s or something? That’ll run you at least a grand today.

I thought they charge $350.37 per paragraph.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Kenm

I thought they charge $350.37 per paragraph.

Per word, around here.

[Polycarp]

“Give, devise. amd bequeath” is a triplet from estate law, e.g. in wills. IANAL, but I believe that at one time one term referenced the passing by will of real property and another of personal property, and it was important to ensure you matched the right term to the right giving of property. Anyone who can expand on that?

[lawbuff]

@friedo

There are lots of these. Here’s some I can think of:

[ul]
[li]Cease and desist[/li][li]Breaking and entering[/li][li]Waive and relinquish[/li][li]Aidin’ an’ abettin’ [/li][li]Null and void[/li][li]Lewd and lascivious[/li][li]Goods and chattels[/li][/ul]

Not listed, but how about NEGATIVE PREGNANT.

[lawbuff]

@dstarfire

Actually, I’m pretty sure breaking and entering are two legally separate things.

Breaking refers to obtaining unlawful access (i.e. literally breaking a window or wall, picking the lock, etc.).

Entering is using the access you’ve thus gained.

If you give your neighbor a house key for emergencies and they use it to come in and munch your food they’re guilty of entering, but not breaking.

Still, some input from somebody who actually practices law would be appreciated.

2911.13 Breaking and entering.

(A) No person by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an unoccupied structure, with purpose to commit therein any theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or any felony.

(B) No person shall trespass on the land or premises of another, with purpose to commit a felony.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of breaking and entering, a felony of the fifth degree.

Effective Date: 07-01-1996
BURGLARY is in an OCCUPIED structure, by definition, 2911.12

[Wendell_Wagner]

lawbuff, in what sense is “negative pregnant” a legal doublet? It doesn’t contain the word “and” and it doesn’t contain two words with the same meaning:

Negative pregnant

[Little_Nemo]

@Kenm

You forgot the “That’ll be $350.37, please.”

It would have been redundant and repetitive.

[lawbuff]

@Wendell_Wagner

lawbuff, in what sense is “negative pregnant” a legal doublet? It doesn’t contain the word “and” and it doesn’t contain two words with the same meaning:

Negative pregnant - Wikipedia

The OP mention redundancy, so how can you have a pregnancy that is negative, a play on a real pregnancy in legal terms.

[guizot]

@RealityChuck

There’s nothing wrong with redundancy, especially in legal matters. It helps to eliminate confusion and prevents fraud.

For instance, if you the order were just to “cease” something, another lawyer could say his client did “cease” something, even if he didn’t “desist” from doing it. Then you get into a big argument as to the precise meaning of the term.

This is why we have judges. I’m pretty sure what Hello Again is what this comes down to:

@Hello_Again

. . . In modern English the meanings of the words within the couplet have diverged, but at the time they were synonyms. Today couplets have no purpose other than legalistic flourish.

A judge would have the authority to say to anyone trying to split hairs that “cease” does in fact mean “from this point on,” as far as the court is concerned.

IOW, the judge would have the authority to say that legal precedent supersedes linguistic quibbles over semantics.

[Wendell_Wagner]

lawbuff, how are the words “pregnant” and “negative” redundant?

[Polycarp]

@lawbuff

2911.13 Breaking and entering.

(A) No person by force, stealth, or deception, shall trespass in an unoccupied structure, with purpose to commit therein any theft offense, as defined in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or any felony.

(B) No person shall trespass on the land or premises of another, with purpose to commit a felony.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of breaking and entering, a felony of the fifth degree.

Effective Date: 07-01-1996
BURGLARY is in an OCCUPIED structure, by definition, 2911.12

In Ohio, anyway. I don’t believe that’s true for New York.

[barbitu8]

@Polycarp

“Give, devise. amd bequeath” is a triplet from estate law, e.g. in wills. IANAL, but I believe that at one time one term referenced the passing by will of real property and another of personal property, and it was important to ensure you matched the right term to the right giving of property. Anyone who can expand on that?

A will (LW&T, if you will :)) bequeaths personal property while it devises real property. I don’t think it is crucial that you match the right word. Usually they are all lumped together, anyway. A person who receives personal property under a will is a legatee. One receiving real property is a devisee.

[SpyOne]

@Doug_K

No, all you have to do is open a door without permission to be guilty of breaking and entering. No actual breaking of anything required.

Really?
I seem to recall in an antique police procedural (and perhaps the film Legal Eagles) the notion being put forth that an unlocked door constituted and invitation to enter, legally. That if you left the front door unlocked, folks who entered thereby were not committing a crime (yet).
Which is part of why I keep my door locked when I’m home.

[barbitu8]

I doubt that a person entering your home uninvited is entering by your consent merely because the door was unlocked. He would be guilty of at least trespassing. In fact, he would not have to enter your house to be trespassing. Merely being on your property uninvited would be a trespass.

[Doug_K]

@barbitu8

I doubt that a person entering your home uninvited is entering by your consent merely because the door was unlocked. He would be guilty of at least trespassing. In fact, he would not have to enter your house to be trespassing. Merely being on your property uninvited would be a trespass.

Entering an open door is not a break in, but is still a trespass. Opening a closed but unlocked door or window is legally a break. This is explicitly mentioned in the previous cite:

But there are some less obvious examples that also are considered to be “breakings.” Opening a closed door or window is a breaking, even if they are unlocked. Going in through an open window that is not intended for use as an entrance is also a breaking, but going in through an unobstructed entrance — such as an open door — is not.