Definition
A Latin procedural phrase meaning "by a leap" or "by a bound." In legal usage, per saltum describes action taken by skipping over an intervening step, stage, or proceeding that would ordinarily be required. The phrase captures the idea of jumping past an established procedural sequence to reach a result — or initiate a step — out of the normal order.
Most commonly encountered in appellate procedure, per saltum describes the bypassing of an intermediate tribunal to bring a matter directly before a higher court. In this sense, an appeal per saltum leaps over the usual appellate tier — for example, going from a trial court directly to a supreme court without passing through an intermediate court of appeals.
The term also appears in older procedural writing to describe any situation in which parties or courts have moved forward in litigation while skipping over steps that ordinarily precede the current stage.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "At a single leap; all at once."
Historical common usage: Not separately defined in Webster's 1913 as a legal term; used in general scholarly and classical contexts to mean a sudden jump or bound, as in a physical leap or a figurative skip in reasoning or sequence.
The gap between common and legal meaning is modest but worth noting. In ordinary use, the phrase suggests swiftness or simultaneity — doing something all at once. In legal contexts, the emphasis falls not on speed but on the skipping of a procedural stage that carries independent legal significance. The concern is with what is omitted, not merely with how quickly a result is reached.
Common Confusion
Per saltum is occasionally conflated loosely with terms describing expedited review or certification of questions to higher courts. These are distinct. Certified questions and interlocutory appeals are authorized procedural mechanisms with their own rules and standards. Per saltum, historically, described irregular or unauthorized leaping — parties proceeding as though an intervening step had been completed when it had not. Modern discretionary bypass mechanisms (such as certiorari before judgment in U.S. federal practice) are sometimes described informally as per saltum appeals, but the classical usage implies irregularity rather than structured authorization.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter per saltum primarily in two contexts: historical procedural texts and opinions dealing with appellate jurisdiction.
In historical sources, the phrase appears without elaboration, as writers assumed familiarity with the Latin. The Burrill quotation — Lord Ellenborough's remark in 8 East 511 — illustrates that the term was used to flag a procedural irregularity: parties had jumped ahead in proceedings in a way the court found notable. Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century common law materials should be alert to the phrase appearing as a criticism or signal that something in the procedural posture needs examination.
In modern appellate practice, the concept survives under different labels. U.S. federal courts occasionally permit direct appeals from district courts to the Supreme Court in extraordinary circumstances, bypassing the circuit courts of appeals. Some states have analogous mechanisms. When researching the history or legitimacy of such bypass procedures, per saltum is the classical term linking modern doctrine to its procedural antecedents.
The phrase also appears in discussions of English common law procedure and early American practice, where the sequencing of writs and pleadings was rigid and jumps in procedure carried real consequences for the validity of proceedings.
Researchers should note that the encyclopedia entries surfaced under "per se" rules are not related to per saltum. The similarity in the Latin prefix is coincidental; per se means "by itself" or "in itself," while per saltum means "by a leap." Do not allow index proximity to create a false connection.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four historical sources are in close agreement. Black's (2nd Ed.), Bouvier's, and Burrill's all define the phrase identically in substance: "by a leap or bound; by a sudden movement; passing over certain proceedings," each citing 8 East 511. Burrill adds the direct quotation from Lord Ellenborough, which is the most useful historical anchoring available.
The first edition of Black's entry reproduced in the source material appears to be a misaligned scan, reflecting text from a different entry rather than a definition of per saltum. Researchers relying on Black's 1st Ed. should verify the entry independently.
None of the historical dictionaries elaborate on the appellate bypass application specifically, which had not yet developed the structured form it takes in modern practice. The concept is treated as a general procedural irregularity rather than a recognized appellate mechanism. This is the most significant gap in the historical sources: they capture the classical meaning without anticipating the doctrinal development that gave per saltum its primary modern relevance.
Jurisdictional Note
The phrase and the concept appear in both English and American legal history. Modern bypass or leap-frog appellate procedures exist in various forms across jurisdictions but operate under jurisdiction-specific statutory and rule-based frameworks. The classical per saltum concept and modern bypass mechanisms share the underlying idea but should not be treated as legally equivalent without jurisdiction-specific research.