Glossary entry

English term or phrase:

who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense

Spanish translation:

quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que no pudiera invocarse como defensa

Added to glossary by Sandro Tomasi
Oct 3, 2024 13:58
5 mos ago
26 viewers *
English term

who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense

English to Spanish Law/Patents Law (general) court decision
Hi. My last question regarding this topic seems to have not post correctly, so I'll post the revised version. I cannot make heads or tails of what this phrase means, so if anyone can give me helping hand, I would appreciate it.
Change log

Oct 8, 2024 20:35: Sandro Tomasi Created KOG entry

Oct 9, 2024 02:25: Sandro Tomasi changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/1235428">Sandro Tomasi's</a> old entry - "who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense "" to ""quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que no pudiera invocarse como defensa""

Discussion

Giuliana Brenna (asker) Oct 4, 2024:
Thank you to everyone!
Sandro Tomasi Oct 4, 2024:
@Jonathan Yes, that makes all the difference in the world. Good catch!

After reviewing the context from Samuels v. Mackell, and Roe v. Wade (below), the phrase “who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense” indicates that Hallford did not claim any federally protected right that could not be used as a defense. In other words, the rights he alleged could be asserted as a defense against prosecution.

The structure of the sentence contains a double negative, which can make it confusing. To clarify: Hallford did not allege a right that could not be used as a defense, implying that any rights he did allege would be valid as a defense. This suggests that Hallford’s alleged rights were indeed relevant and could be invoked as a defense against the state prosecutions.

The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688. Pp. 125-127.
Jonathan Norris Oct 4, 2024:
My take …is it’s a double negative, so the rights they alleged could also be asserted as a defense against prosecution. The alleged rights are valid.

Hope it helps.
Sandro Tomasi Oct 3, 2024:
@Giuliana Thank you!
Giuliana Brenna (asker) Oct 3, 2024:
It's the Roe vs. Wade Case. Here's the full paragraph: "The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him."
Sandro Tomasi Oct 3, 2024:
@Giuliana Who alleged and where? Any further context?

Proposed translations

+4
5 hrs
Selected

quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que pudiera invocarse como defensa

Podría ser, ¿no?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 12 hrs (2024-10-04 02:13:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Jonathan for bringing the double negative to our attention!

Based on the context of Samuels v. Mackell, cited in Roe v. Wade (below), and the double negative in the original phrase, the final translation of “who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense” should be:

“quien no alegó ningún derecho protegido por la ley federal que no pudiera invocarse como defensa.”

This version maintains the double negative, indicating that the rights Hallford did allege could be asserted as a defense against prosecution.

Citation from Roe v. Wade:
The District Court correctly refused injunctive, but erred in granting declaratory, relief to Hallford, who alleged no federally protected right not assertable as a defense against the good-faith state prosecutions pending against him. Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688. Pp. 125-127.
Note from asker:
Si, me confundia un poco el "not assertable".
Peer comment(s):

agree Andrew Bramhall : Assertable means invocable, yes;
2 hrs
Hi, Andrew. I'm changing my answer due to Jonathan's comment about the double negative. Feel free to change your response if you don't agree.
agree teju
3 hrs
Hi, teju. I'm changing my answer due to Jonathan's comment about the double negative. Feel free to change your response if you don't agree.
agree Mónica Algazi : Sí, ...que no pudiera ... Saludos, Sandro.
21 hrs
Gracias por la confirmación, Mónica.
agree Marcelo González : Así es, tal y como ya se ha dicho y que ya señalas en tu propuesta. In the glossary entry that'll appear at the top, I'm sure it'll be sporting or wearing its "Sunday best." ;))
1 day 21 mins
Gracias, Marcelo.
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
+1
19 mins

los cuales no adujeron derechos federales de protección ejercibles como defensa

Creo que podría ser esto, espero que te ayude.
Note from asker:
Thank you!
Peer comment(s):

agree Natalia Pedrosa
19 hrs
Something went wrong...
3 days 21 hrs

quien no planteó ningún derecho amparado por la ley fed. (foral) no oponible en vía de excepción

Excuse the delay, but I missed this one.

I also included ley foral (local law) as a shorter and fuzzy-match version of ley federal.

I aslo do verily believe that this is a non-literal scenario of an Arg. excepción oponible (assertable: that can be set up as a AmE collateral BrE issue estoppel).
Example sentence:

Cuando en derecho se dice que algo es *oponible* es porque se tiene la facultad para hacer valer un derecho frente a un tercero.

Something went wrong...
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search