Oral

(ôr'əl) or U·ralsk or U·rals'k (yʊ-rălsk', ū-rälsk')

A city of northwest Kazakhstan on the Ural River south-southwest of Samara, Russia. Founded by Cossacks c. 1622, it is a processing and manufacturing center. Population: 196,000.

View more Travel videos

Daniel Webster, in his 1818 argument to the Court in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, which dealt with a state's power to alter Dartmouth's charter, ended with the words “It is a small college … and yet there are those who love it.” Contemporaries reported that many in the room were in tears. Chief Justice John Marshall himself was moved, and Webster won a decision in favor of the college. Before the Civil War arguments before the Court might go on for days. Today, except for rare cases of extraordinary importance, each side is limited to thirty minutes. Occasionally the Court reverses a decision summarily without any argument at all. And the chief justice is very strict about the time limits. A red light shows on the lectern after thirty minutes and the chief will notify the advocate that his time is up, sometimes in mid‐sentence.

Because every case argued to the Court has been fully briefed and the justices come to the argument with a thorough knowledge of the briefs and record, it is often said that oral argument never changes any minds and is therefore useless. This is not true. A good oral argument will never consist of a set speech—advocates, by a rule of the Court, may not read their arguments—and will generally avoid the kind of oratorical flourishes that made Court sessions a popular event in Webster's day. Rather, an able advocate will encourage questions from the bench and her skill will consist in the ability to make points as answers to questions. A skillful advocate will also discern from the justices' questions what concerns each of them may have and will use the occasion to address those particular concerns. Thus a successful oral argument is more like a compelling conversation than a lecture—this is aided by the fact that the lawyer's lectern in the Supreme Court is quite close to the bench, and the contact with the justices seems more intimate than in many other courts.

It is only in the oral argument that the lawyer must answer questions. In his brief a lawyer can avoid or try to obscure weaknesses in his case. While an opposing brief may seek to point out such evasions, it is during oral argument that there is no avoiding a direct question by one of the justices. Thus, though it is true that few cases have been won in oral argument, many have been lost. Under what can be relentless and sometimes even sadistic questioning by the justices, a quite plausible case may fall apart entirely. Thus oral argument provides a useful test of the soundness of an argument. Of great symbolic importance too is the fact that this test is one where the public may see that the justices do indeed attend to the cases before them and that no argument will prevail that is not submitted to an open challenge.

The questioning by the justices at oral argument also allows them a means of convincing, or at least arguing with, each other before their vote on a case is reached in their private conference. Such public duels, between Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter, for instance, across the person of the hapless advocate, have produced some legendary exchanges.

At times in the Court's history there has existed a small group of lawyers who specialized in arguing to the Supreme Court. Daniel Webster was perhaps the most famous advocate to appear before the Court. John W. Davis was the best known in the twentieth century. Such specialization is much less common now, and most arguments are presented by advocates who will appear before the Court only once in their lives. The result is a greater variability in the quality and helpfulness of oral argument than is warranted by the importance of the Court's business.

See also Briefs; Decision‐making Dynamics.

Bibliography

• William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court—How It Was, How It Is (1987).
• G. Edward White, The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–1835 (1988)

— Charles Fried

After the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, the clerk of the Court schedules the oral argument on the case. At this time, attorneys for both sides of the case speak before the justices in the Supreme Court chamber, or courtroom. Each side is limited to a 30-minute oral presentation. The attorneys may not read a set speech. They usually interact with the justices, who ask them questions. The justices may interrupt an advocate with questions or comments whenever they wish. About one-third of the counsel's 30-minute presentation is taken up with questions or remarks by justices. The effective advocate makes skillful responses to the questions of the justices. Those who stumble in responding or try to evade the question are likely to make a bad impression on the Court. During oral arguments, passionate exchanges at times occur between advocate and justices or between different justices who take exception to the reasoning or style of the commentary.

The justices read briefs, which are the lawyers' summaries of their arguments, and other documents regarding each case, such as memoranda about the case prepared by their law clerks and records from the trial court, before the day of the oral argument. As a result, they are likely to bring questions and concerns about the issues to the oral argument. This hearing gives the justices an opportunity to test the worth of the arguments on both sides of the case. Moreover, through this open hearing the justices demonstrate to the public that arguments on both sides of the case will be considered and challenged before a decision is made.

---

Spoken.


oral argument
legal arguments given in court proceedings by attorneys in order to persuade the court to decide a legal issue in favor of their client.


oral confession
an acknowledgment by a criminal defendant that he did the act of which he is accused and that he is guilty of a crime as a result of it. See self-incrimination, privilege against.

oral contract
see contract [oral contract].


oral deposition
see deposition [oral deposition].


oral trust
a trust created by the agreement of the grantor and the settlor, but for which no document is executed setting forth the terms of the trust. Trusts of land are subject to the Statute of Frauds. Most states will recognize an oral trust of personal property, however, a few states also subject trusts of personal property to the Statute of Frauds.
Scott & Ascher on Trusts §6.9 (5th ed. 2006).


oral will
see nuncupative will.

It is 9:31 PM, February 13, in Oral (Kazakhstan).

An oral will is one that is communicated orally to witnesses, usually on the person's deathbed. An oral will is usually made in haste, which opens up the possibility for errors. 

Oral wills are very controversial, because disappointed relatives can contend that the decedent was not of sound mind and body or that someone exerted undue influence on the decedent when the will was made.

Investopedia Says:
There is a small number of states that recognize oral wills under certain rules. One such state is Ohio, which stipulates in its law that an oral will is valid only if the two witnesses write down the will within 10 days of it being given and if the will is submitted for probate within six months of the decedent's death. Some states have dollar-amount limits on property that can be passed on by an oral will.

Related Links:
Don't let bad estate planning lead to unnecessary costs and stress for your inheritors. Skipping-Out on Probate Costs
With some preparation, you can save your heirs from paying a hefty estate tax. Here are some tips. Getting Started On Your Estate Plan
Contrary to popular belief, inheriting assets isn't always a good thing. Find out what to do if you want to disclaim them. Refusing An Inheritance
Don't trust the courts to follow your wishes - plan the distribution of your own assets. Why You Should Draft A Will

adj

Pertaining to the mouth.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)