Also known as: joint · jointly
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Shared by or belonging to two or more persons or entities. The term denotes collective action, responsibility, ownership, or prosecution among the participants.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jerome Jackson, an associate at a firm, filed a pleading containing unsupported factual denials. After notice and a hearing, the court found a Rule 11 violation. The court imposed sanctions on both Jackson and the firm because the firm bore responsibility for the associate's filing.
Jacqueline Juarez and Jordan Jenkins faced joint trial on a felony charge carrying more than one year of imprisonment. The government exercised six peremptory challenges while the two defendants together exercised ten challenges during jury selection.
Jillian James and Jason Jung were charged with conspiring to commit multiple related offenses as part of an organized scheme. The prosecutor elected to try them jointly because the alleged conspiracies formed different aspects of the same criminal conduct.
Jasmine Jordan and a lawyer from another firm agreed to split a fee for representing a client. Each lawyer assumed joint responsibility for the entire representation and confirmed the division in writing with the client's consent.
Juarez Holdings conveyed land to two individuals who took title as joint tenants. State law permitted joint tenancy as a form of concurrent ownership, so the grantees held the estate with right of survivorship.
A state statute granted a husband unilateral authority to sell property held jointly with his wife. The wife challenged the statute, and the court struck it down because the gender-based classification failed intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
A law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee absent exceptional circumstances. The court may impose sanctions on the firm after notice and opportunity to respond.
The defendant or defendants jointly receive ten peremptory challenges while the government receives six when the offense is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.
…have examined the patient and have concurred in writing," and the procedure "is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals." The providing of medical information by physicians to state legislatures in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic abortion was…
…Court of the United States for Louisiana, brought upon a judgment rendered in New York under a State statute, against two joint debtors, only one of whom had been served with process, the other being a non-resident of the State. The Circuit Court held the judgment conclusive and binding upon the non-resident not…
…at 501 (Harlan, J., concurring).[^maj-11] See generally Ingraham v. Wright , 430 U. S. 651, 672-674, and nn. 41, 42 (1977); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath , 341 U. S. 123, 162-163 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Lochner v. New York , 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Our…
…in order to become a law; and whether the negative should in either case be exclusively vested in the president alone, or in him
…order no longer meaningful. On June 7, the District Court removed its protective order and, on June 10, counsel for both parties jointly
Two or more persons charged with criminal conspiracy may be prosecuted jointly when they are charged with conspiring with one another or when the conspiracies constitute different aspects of a scheme of organized criminal conduct.
A division of a fee between lawyers not in the same firm is permitted when the division is in proportion to services performed or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation, the client agrees in writing, and the total fee is reasonable.
An estate may be held in joint tenancy when joint tenancy is an allowed form of concurrent ownership in the state and the conveyance satisfies the stated conditions for creating that estate.
The statute creates an impermissible gender-based classification that fails intermediate scrutiny because it treats husbands and wives differently without an exceedingly persuasive justification.