Talk:Sua sponte

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

  sua sponte:

In United States v. Rosen, 582 F. 2d 1032, ( 5th. Cir.,1978 ), a case that involved the conviction of a physician for dispensing controlled substances for other than a legitimate purpose, a constellation of nine obvious signals purported to indicate that a physician was illegally prescribing controlled substances.

None of these indicators equated to any legal interpretation that it was unlawful to write multiple prescriptions for a legitimate medical purpose on the same day - with instructions to fill them on different dates.

The DEA did not quote from Rosen to demonstrate that the court made any such legal interpretation as to prescribing methods.The DEA then referenced these indicators in crafting it`s own interpretation as to what ostensibly constituted prohibited prescription refilling "sua sponte" and not in keeping within the bounds of what truly constituted a prohibited prescription, under 21 U.S.C. 829(a) or it`s implementing regulation, 21 C.F.R. 1306.12. Thus, this was merely an opinion issuing from the DEA alone.

The term """suo motu""" is a very frequently used term in Pakistan and India. There it specifically refers to cases taken up the higher judiciary, the Supreme Court and Provincial High Courts (equivalent to a state supreme court), on their own accord (i.e.: without a formal complaint from any petitioner). This article needs to have a section on the usage in each country. I just added a sentence about its usage in Pakistan, because till a few minutes ago, the article mentioned nothing about this topic. Kas1234567 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made comments concerning the use of the closely related Sua sponte and Motu proprio. It may be that the terms would be better dealt with under one title than split. Otr500 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]