UTI ROGAS

4 definitions found across Law Mind sources

← Dictionary
UTI ROGASAuthored
The Law Mind • 679 words
Definition
Latin: "As you ask." In Roman law, the formal verbal expression by which a citizen cast a vote in favor of a proposed law. The full phrase — *uti rogas, volo vel jubeo* — translates roughly as "as you ask, I will" or "I vote as you propose; I am for the law." It was the affirmative vote in Roman legislative assemblies, spoken aloud or indicated by the abbreviated letters "U. R." marked on a ballot tablet. The phrase functioned as the Roman legislative equivalent of "aye" in modern deliberative bodies. The term has no operative legal meaning in modern common law practice. It appears in legal dictionaries almost exclusively as a term of Roman law, useful to researchers encountering Roman legislative procedure in historical legal scholarship or primary sources on classical legal institutions. ---
Why It Matters in Research
Uti rogas is a terminal Roman law term — that is, it does not carry forward into common law doctrine, equity, or modern statutory frameworks. Researchers will encounter it only in two contexts: (1) historical legal dictionaries and treatises dealing with Roman law and its influence on civil law systems, and (2) encyclopedic treatments of Roman legislative procedure where the mechanics of popular assemblies (comitia) are explained. The abbreviation "U. R." on Roman ballot tablets is the significant navigational detail here. Historical sources discussing Roman voting procedure, particularly those describing the *tabella* (ballot reform) of the late Republic, will use this abbreviation without always spelling out the phrase. Researchers working with scholarship on the Lex Gabinia (139 BCE) or subsequent ballot laws should recognize "U. R." as the affirmative vote marker, distinct from "A" (*antiquo*, meaning "I oppose" or "I keep the old law"). Because uti rogas appears in Black's and Burrill's primarily as definitional filler between substantive entries — the historical dictionaries each segue immediately into the maxim *utile per inutile non vitiatur* — researchers scanning historical dictionary pages should not mistake it for a term with common law application. It is context, not doctrine. For researchers in civil law jurisdictions or comparative law, uti rogas belongs to a cluster of Roman procedural terms that shaped later European legislative vocabulary but did not migrate into the common law tradition. Civil law treatises in Latin will use the phrase with assumed familiarity. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (1st and 2nd editions) and Burrill's are in complete agreement on substance, and the definitions are nearly identical across all three sources. All three cite the same authority: Adams, *Roman Antiquities* (referenced as "Rom. Ant."), at pages 98 and 100. This uniformity suggests the definition was stable and uncontested across the period of these dictionaries' compilation, and that all three likely drew from the same secondary source rather than from independent analysis. Burrill's adds a parenthetical gloss — "(As you ask.)" — at the outset, which is the most user-friendly feature of the three entries and the clearest translation for a common law reader encountering the phrase for the first time. None of the three historical dictionaries situate uti rogas within the broader architecture of Roman voting procedure — the distinction between *uti rogas* and *antiquo*, the role of the ballot laws in Republican Rome, or the assemblies in which such votes were cast. Researchers needing that context must go beyond the dictionary shelf to treatises on Roman public law or classical scholarship on Republican legislative institutions. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Roman Law — Legislative Procedure; Voting in Roman Assemblies ---
Related Terms
Antiquo — the opposing vote in Roman legislative procedure ("I keep the old law"); the formal negative to uti rogas Comitia — the Roman popular assemblies in which uti rogas votes were cast Tabella — the ballot tablet on which "U. R." was inscribed Utile per inutile non vitiatur — the maxim immediately following uti rogas in the historical dictionaries; unrelated in substance but a frequent source of confusion when scanning dictionary columns Roman law — parent system
UTI ROGASmain
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
Lat. In Roman law. The form of words by which a vote in favor of a proposed law was orally expressed. Uti rogas, volo vel jubeo, as you ask, I will or order; I vote as you propose; I am for the law. The letters "U. R." on a ballot ex- pressed the same sentiment. Adams, Rom. Ant. 98, 100. Utile per inutile non vitiatur. The aseful is not vitiated by the useless. Sur-
UTI ROGASmain
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) • 1910
Lat. In Roman law. The form of words by which a vote in favor of a proposed law was orally expressed. Ut# rogas, volo vel jubeo, as you ask, I will or order; I vote as you propose; I am for the law. The letters “U. R.” on a ballot expressed the same sentiment. Adams, Rom. Ant. 98, 100. Utile per inutile non vitiatur. The useful is not vitiated by the useless. Surplusage does not spoil the remaining part if that is good in itself. Dyer, 392; Broom, Max. 627.
UTI ROGASmain
Burrill's Law Dictionary • 1870
Lat. (As you ask.) In Roman law. The form of words by which a vote in favor of a proposed law was orally expressed. Uti rogas, volo vel jubeo; as you ask, I will or order; I vote as you propose; I am for the law. The letters U. R. on a ballot, expressed the same sentiment. Adam's Rom. Ant. 98, 100. Utile per inutile non vitiatur. The useful is not vitiated by the useless. Where an instrument contains, in addition to proper matter, that which need not have been stated, such unnecessary matter will not vitiate the other. Calv. Lex. This maxim of the civil law has long been adopted in the common law, as a maxim of conveyancing, of pleading, and of evidence. Surplusage does not vitiate that which in other respects is good and valid. Co. Litt. 3 a, 227 a. 3 Co. 10 a, Dowtie's case. Broom's Max. 82, [486.] Steph. Pl. 378. Averments wholly immaterial need not be proved. Best on Evid. 303, § 263. The maxim is thus further explained in the civil law. Where the useful can be separated from the useless matter, in accordance with nature, law, or the interest of parties, it will not be impaired by it; but where the two are not separable without impugning some rule of nature or of law, or contravening the intention of the parties, there the useful matter is vitiated by the useless. Calv. Lex.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In
The Law Mind Legal Dictionary. This is a legal research library, not a lawyer.
Dictionary • Encyclopedia • Sign In