Definition
Abuse is a broad legal term with several distinct meanings across different areas of law. Context determines which sense applies.
1. Improper use of a legal power, process, or position. A person in authority — a judge, officer, or trustee — abuses that authority when they exercise it for a purpose contrary to its intended function. This is the dominant sense in procedural and administrative law.
2. Maltreatment of a person or animal. The physical, emotional, or sexual harming of another, particularly where that person is vulnerable — a child, elder, prisoner, or domestic partner. This sense governs most criminal statutes and civil protective proceedings.
3. Abuse of process. The malicious or perverse use of a regular legal proceeding to gain some advantage not contemplated by law. Distinguished from malicious prosecution in that the proceeding itself may be legitimate; what is abusive is the purpose behind it.
4. Destruction of substance through use (civilian sense). In property and bailment law, particularly in the civil law tradition, a person abuses a thing bailed when their use necessarily consumes or destroys it — as one who borrows grain abuses it by eating it.
5. Substance abuse. In employment, administrative, and regulatory law, the intentional misuse of alcohol or a controlled substance beyond its prescribed or intended purpose.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To put to a wrong use; to injure or maltreat, especially repeatedly; to attack with coarse language; to use a drug for a purpose other than intended.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To put to a wrong use; to misapply or pervert; to use ill; to maltreat; to punish or tax excessively.
The common and legal meanings overlap substantially, but legal usage is more precise and more consequential. In ordinary speech, "abuse" can describe anything from overusing a parking space to berating a coworker. In law, each sense carries distinct elements, standards of proof, and legal consequences. A researcher who encounters the word in a historical document must determine which sense was operative — procedural abuse, physical maltreatment, or property consumption — before any analysis can proceed.
---
Common Confusion
Abuse of process and malicious prosecution are frequently conflated. Malicious prosecution involves initiating legal proceedings without probable cause and with malicious intent. Abuse of process involves using an otherwise valid proceeding for an improper purpose — the proceeding is real and may even have probable cause, but it is being weaponized. The distinction matters for what a plaintiff must prove and what remedies are available.
Abuse and neglect are similarly conflated in child and elder law. Abuse typically involves an affirmative act of harm; neglect involves a failure to act. Many statutes treat them separately, with different reporting triggers and evidentiary standards.
---
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Abuse of authority: The exercise of official power in a manner exceeding its lawful scope or for an unauthorized purpose.
Abuse of discretion: A standard of appellate review, not a freestanding cause of action. A lower court or tribunal abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of reasonable choices available under the law.
Abuse of process: A tort and, in some jurisdictions, a basis for sanctions or dismissal. Requires a legal proceeding used for an improper, collateral purpose.
Abuse of a distress: Historical. Taking items under a distress claim and using or damaging them beyond what is permitted pending resolution of the underlying dispute.
Child abuse: Statutory. Physical, emotional, or sexual harm to a minor, or exposure to conditions likely to cause harm. Definitions vary significantly by jurisdiction.
Elder abuse: Statutory. Physical, emotional, financial, or sexual harm to an elderly person, often paired with exploitation and neglect statutes.
Substance abuse: Regulatory and employment law. The problematic use of alcohol or controlled substances; defined by statute or policy rather than clinical criteria in most legal contexts.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term "abuse" in historical legal sources should never be read at face value without identifying which sense the author intended. Bouvier uses the civilian property sense — destruction of substance through use — which is almost entirely absent from modern American legal discourse but appears regularly in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century treatises on bailment and usufruct. A researcher reading Bouvier's entry and applying it to a modern child welfare case would be badly misled.
The abuse of process doctrine has a layered history. Burrill's Baconian definition — a "wandering from ancient practice" — reflects a much older, broader conception that shades into what we would now call judicial error or procedural irregularity. By the time Black's second edition was published, abuse of process had narrowed into a specific tort with identifiable elements. Sources from before roughly 1850 may use the term to describe what modern lawyers would call reversible error, not tortious conduct.
In the Law Mind corpus, abuse appears across criminal, employment, family, elder, and civil procedure materials with different operative meanings in each. Cross-referencing is essential. A search on "abuse" in criminal sources will surface child and elder abuse statutes; the same search in civil procedure materials will surface abuse of process and abuse of discretion doctrine; employment materials will return substance abuse policy and testing frameworks. Failing to filter by subject area will produce an unmanageable and misleading result set.
Jurisdictional variation is most pronounced in child abuse and elder abuse statutes — mandatory reporting obligations, definitions of harm, and civil liability frameworks differ substantially across states. Federal definitions under child welfare funding statutes set a floor but not a ceiling.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four historical dictionaries reflect different stages of the term's development and different primary audiences.
Bouvier leads with the civilian sense — destruction of substance through use — and treats abuse primarily as a property concept. This reflects Bouvier's civil law literacy and the audience of antebellum American lawyers who still engaged seriously with civil law sources.
Burrill takes a procedural orientation, foregrounding Bacon's definition of abuse as deviation from established legal practice. This is the most historically contingent definition: it describes a world in which law operated largely through precedent and custom, and departure from that custom was itself the wrong.
Anderson is the most practical of the three, listing recognized compound expressions — abuse of authority, of discretion, of process, of a distress — and treating the term as essentially a modifier that takes its specific meaning from context. He also explicitly links abuse to the sense of injuring another person, making his entry the most useful bridge to modern usage.
Black's second edition concentrates almost entirely on abuse of process as a tort, offering case citations and the Wharton definition of malicious abuse of legal process. This reflects the maturation of the doctrine by the early twentieth century. Notably, Black's entry as reproduced here appears to begin mid-sentence, suggesting the full definition is truncated — researchers consulting Black's for this term should verify the complete entry in the original.
None of the historical dictionaries anticipates substance abuse as a legal category. That usage is entirely a product of twentieth-century administrative and criminal law development and cannot be read back into these sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Child abuse and elder abuse definitions, mandatory reporting obligations, and civil liability rules vary significantly by state. Federal statutes establish baseline definitions for purposes of funding eligibility, but state criminal and family codes control prosecution and protective proceedings. Substance abuse in the employment context is governed by a patchwork of federal agency regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law — with significant variation in how addiction is treated as a disability versus a disqualifying condition.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Child Abuse and Child Endangerment (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Elder Abuse and Exploitation (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Drug Testing and Substance Abuse Policies (The Law Mind Employment & Labor Law Encyclopedia)
---