i/s/h/a

What does this legal acronym mean?

Give your answer in the comments, and no fair peeking! I just learned it today, so I don't advise people to use it unless they're confident that it's well-known in their jurisdiction. (A Westlaw search suggests that it's used in New York and a bit New Jersey, and very little elsewhere.)

Comments

[David Nieporent]

Since I practice in NY/NJ, when I started read your question my immediate reaction was, “isn’t that obvious?” I didn’t realize it was only used around here.

I won’t give the answer to give people time to guess.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I found a bunch of cases using it on Westlaw, and I still don’t have the slightest idea what it’s supposed to mean.

[branford]

Yeah, I litigate in NY and use or see “s/h/a” or “i/s/h/a” all the time.

[JimM47]

Does NY lack (or lack enforcement of) requirement to amend a complaint that misidentifies a defendant? Or does this appear only in the body of a document, rather than the caption?

[mtkesq]

Mostly it is in the body. You will see it in the caption when that party brings a third party action. It is common in New York because (1) the procedure for amending if it is not the first time and within twenty days is onerous and (2) New York tends to ignore the defect when the correct party submits answering papers where they state what the proper party name is.

[CJColucci]

I see “s/h/a” all the time, but have not seen “i/s/h/a.” I represent public universities and plaintiffs often purport to sue the individual college rather than the university system, which is the proper suable entity. There are ways to correct this, but it isn’t worth doing. I usually drop a footnote and nobody bothers about it.

[mtkesq]

I have seen both although my preference is to use s/h/a unless my adversary has been a pain. In that latter case I will add the “i” just to hammer the point home. There are times that it is necessary to amend the caption, but knowing that most Justices in New York don’t give a damn unless it is absolutely necessary I am not going to ruin any goodwill by making a Motion to Dismiss rather than using (i/)s/h/a in my Answer.

[Cal Cetín]

I See Hallucinations Also

[jdgalt1]

Looking it up I was able to find s/h/a. Can I assume the connection?

[Milhouse]

That… would not be correct.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I saw her…

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

…standing there

[TwelveInchPianist]

Affidavit. It is a legal acronym, after all.

[Jaypd]

Formless Divine.

[santamonica811]

I take it that it’s pronounced as a word (which is why it’s an acronym and not an abbreviation [SCUBA vs USA, etc etc etc). How is it pronounced?

ISH-uh? EESH-uh? EYE-shuh? Something else??? Google is not helping.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I Seek Hearing Aids.

[MatthewSlyfield]

I See Hungry Alligators

[Brad Jacob]

Indiana Saddle Horse Association. It must come up a lot in NY litigation.

[Darth Chocolate]

I should have another

[Cal Cetín]

+1

[LSchnapf]

since its NY, “i sure hope, a*%&hole”

[Glaucomatose]

I Sold my Hoboken Apartment. It’s been happening to a lot of BigLaw lawyers since Covid struck.

[Danley Wolfe PhD, MBA]

“… is sued herein as …”

[Bored Lawyer]

Close. Just go more negative.

[captcrisis]

Usually they write this out, though “s/h/a” is common.

[Liberal_NV]

Interstate Highway Access?

[DaivdBehar]

Any Latin in a legal utterance voids it because that is the language of a church.

Any language with a readability above the 6th grade voids the legal utterance for procedural unconscionability.

Contracts or Terms of Use that even judges say they cannot understand should be criminalized as fraud. The authors should be arrested and get long prison sentences.

[Eugene Volokh]

The answer, I believe, is “incorrectly sued herein as.”

[DaivdBehar]

Torture and killing of the English language by the most toxic occupation in the country, more toxic than organized crime.

[Klaus Buck]

It means “incorrectly sued herein as.”

[Sidney r finkel]

But in layman’s terms what exactly does ‘incorrectly sued herein as’ mean? Sounds like the late Sid Caeser gibberish to me.

[Eugene Volokh]

It’s clearer in context, e.g., “Paul Plaintiff v. Eugene Volokh, i/s/h/a Gene Volokh” (especially if the caption reads Gene Volokh).

[DaivdBehar]

Does that imply anything in Civil Procedure? Any consequence to the case?

[Sidney r finkel]

Okay, still a little bit confused, but think I get it. Would it be clearer to everyone just to say in caption

“Paul Plaintiff v. Eugene Volokh, and sorry Paul got it wrong the first time listing defendant as “Gene’ but he didn’t know any better”

or am I still off base here.

[David Nieporent]

No, that’s basically it.