ILNews

Defining decisions on legal lexicon

Little guidance exists on common practice of citing dictionaries in court cases.

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A single word might determine the fate of a case before one of Indiana’s highest courts, so it’s no surprise that judges will often turn to dictionaries to help interpret what a word and statute might mean.

But judges face a daunting challenge in being the wordsmiths responsible for providing context for what the law means and how it’s applied in practice and principle. Despite its regularity, dictionary usage isn’t something everyone thinks is good practice and little guidance exists for when and how courts rely on dictionaries.

“Dictionaries are tools that provide effective guidance for the beginning of the process of defining terms – not the end – and lawyers and judges have other tools to give more precise definitions in context,” says a recent Marquette Law Review article written by a New York law professor and Arizona juvenile court judge. “Otherwise, those responsible for dispensing justice would defer too much to the dictionary author.”

View from the top

In the Marquette Law Review article entitled “Scaling the Lexicon Fortress,” the authors examined the past decade’s activity at the Supreme Court of the United States and found the justices had used dictionaries to define 295 words or phrases in 225 opinions between October 2000 and 2010. That’s in line with the 1990s that saw similar numbers and accounted for half of all the court’s dictionary-citing opinions in two centuries. By comparison, the 1980s had about 100 opinions defining 125 terms, while the 1960s had 16 opinions using the dictionary to define 23 terms.

The justices once relied on dictionaries mostly to refresh their memories about word meanings or to provide potential meanings the court could use based on statutory interpretation. But that’s evolved in cases in the past decade to the point where dictionary definitions have sometimes driven the decision more than policy or context.

The practice has drawn opposition from some nationwide, such as the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that wrote in a decision that dictionaries “aim not to select or give meaning to a word or phrase but to report the meaning already established and commonly understood.” State courts in Tennessee have also criticized dictionary use as an imperfect interpretive tool, and the SCOTUS justices have, on occasion, criticized each other for too readily relying on dictionaries.

Legal scholars cite potential problems in using dictionaries for legal reasoning, such as arbitrary and possibly biased selection of dictionaries by judges, and lack of determination as to the qualifications it might have.

“Dictionaries, despite their allure as seemingly perfect arbiters of word meaning, do not reach the end goal of word definition,” the Marquette Law Review article says.

The study says that despite the growing use of dictionaries through the years, the SCOTUS had offered little guidance for when and how dictionaries should be used as a source. That leaves litigants, lawyers, and other courts to gather what principles they can from bits and pieces scattered through various court rulings.

Indiana

In the state-level appellate courts, dictionary use is a common occurrence. A LexisNexis search for the past two years shows the Indiana Supreme Court included the word “dictionary” in 16 opinions while the Court of Appeals used the word 197 times. A majority of those cases appear to have used Black’s Law Dictionary, though some include more than one reference and the courts fluctuate between legal, specialized, or standard dictionaries based on the case and issue at hand.

Sometimes, the exploration focuses on word tense in trying to gauge legislative intent while other times it’s the word itself – such as whether lawmakers used “shall” or “may” in crafting a statute.

Attorney Joel Schumm, a law professor at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, says the courts here have made decisions in recent years about what type of dictionary to rely on in certain situations. He pointed to one of his cases, Richard Brown v. State, No. 49S05-0612-CR-494, where Schumm argued a statutory term on criminal confinement was unconstitutionally vague and that it wasn’t appropriate to cite Black’s Law Dictionary as the state had. The justices agreed, writing that they preferred to consult standard dictionaries rather than specialized legal dictionaries for cases hinging on how ordinary people understand the law.
 

Joel Schumm mug Schumm

“Different dictionaries say different things, and even the same dictionary often has multiple meanings for a term,” Schumm said, noting that other cases have hit on that point as well. “When it comes down to a single word, sometimes having the right place to find a definition makes the difference.”

“It’s not unusual at all for parties to resort to dictionaries and for courts, in turn, to resort to them in trying to define words,” said Indianapolis appellate attorney Bryan Babb, an avid court watcher who has cited dictionaries in his own briefs. “There’s a statutory principle where statutes will be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and so the courts will do that when the Legislature doesn’t specifically define a word.”

More interesting than a traditional legal or standard dictionary, though, is the use of Wikipedia as a dictionary source in legal writing, Babb said. He pointed to one of his cases where he used a Wikipedia definition specifically because the state’s intermediate appellate court had already mentioned it.

“I couldn’t find any other dictionary to aptly define it and would’ve needed multiple sources to adequately explain that word and my argument,” he said. “So I used an opinion where the Court of Appeals had done that… if it’s OK for the Court of Appeals in deciding a case, then I figured it’d be OK for me to use in a brief.”

In the end, the judges, lawyers, and legal scholars reviewing or writing the briefs and opinions say judicial interpretation comes down to more than what a dictionary says.

The Marquette Law Review article sums it up well: “As noted more than 150 years ago, ‘the lexicographer is a historian, not a law giver.’”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT