bill of particulars


Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Acronyms, Wikipedia.

bill of particulars

n. pl. bills of particulars
A more detailed specification of the charges or claims set out in the papers initiating a lawsuit, as requested by the other party.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

bill′ of partic′ulars


n.
an itemized statement of claims or charges in a case, or the counterclaims of a defendant.
[1855–60]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun1.bill of Particulars - the particular events to be dealt with in a criminal trial; advises the defendant and the court of the facts the defendant will be required to meet
pleading - (law) a statement in legal and logical form stating something on behalf of a party to a legal proceeding
allegement, allegation - statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact that you are prepared to prove
law, jurisprudence - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
References in periodicals archive ?
A bill of particulars is a detailed, written statement of charges or claims by the prosecution.
'For us, therefore, to limit in the pre-trial order the evidence on the alleged overt criminal acts to the acts described in the Bill of Particulars submitted by the prosecution would be to disallow the prosecution from presenting evidentiary matters during trial,' it added.
Soules requested to specify the Iowa code that he violated in the Bill of Particulars. "A Bill of Particulars should be allowed when the charge and minutes do not sufficiently inform the defendant of the evidence, which the prosecution will use against him," one of his lawyers, Gina Messamer, explained.
(11) Uniform Rule 202.7(a), applicable in supreme and county court actions, requires that any "motion relating to disclosure or to a bill of particulars [be accompanied by] an affirmation that counsel has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion." (12) This affirmation must be detailed and include "the time, place and nature of the consultation and the issues discussed and any resolutions, or shall indicate good cause why no such conferral with counsel for opposing parties was held." (13)
Instead of such a sweeping generalized and unsubstantiated dissent, however, why not present a bill of particulars with a cogent defense of an alternative view?
The stipulation, which was so-ordered by the Supreme Court on July 25, 2005, provided that 'the plaintiff will be precluded at the time of trial from introducing into evidence any matter contained in the demands set forth in Paragraph W above and not served within sixty (60) days of the date herein: It is undisputed that the plaintiff failed to serve its response to the demands, including the demand for a bill of particulars, within the relevant 60-day period.
What follows, then, is really a bill of particulars drawn up by some of the nation's leading lawyers and historians, that attempts to support these conclusions.
Coverage includes: basis for motions to dismiss indictments; obtaining and drafting a Bill of Particulars; Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds for suppressing evidence; Sixth Amendment rights; discovery issues; cross examination; capitalizing on perjury by government witnesses; and, objectives based on substantive and procedural due process.
It turned out the bill of particulars was pretty much the same from book to book, and since I already agreed that Bush was an unusually bad president--in fact, my daily job at The Washington Monthly was frequently dedicated to illustrating just that point--there hardly seemed much sense in proving the law of diminishing returns by continuing to read every new screed that came out.
When deconstructed, however, it appears a feeble prescription for the nation's transit ills--coming up slipshod and trivial in its bill of particulars.
The lawsuit was dismissed in 1992 because Kreitzer failed to comply with a discovery order seeking a bill of particulars, despite a pending order of preclusion directing him to provide one within a specific time frame.