Definition
APPROPRIATE functions in law both as a verb and, less frequently, as an adjective. The two functions carry distinct legal weight and should be treated separately.
1. As a verb: To appropriate is to take, claim, or set apart something for a particular use or person. In legal contexts, this taking may be lawful or unlawful depending on the actor, the object, and the circumstances.
1a. Lawful appropriation. To lawfully appropriate is to acquire dominion over a thing — often property that was previously unowned or held in common (res nullius or publici juris) — and make it exclusively one's own. The paradigm case is the appropriation of water under the prior appropriation doctrine of western water law, where a user acquires a right to a specific quantity of water by diverting it and applying it to beneficial use. Legislative appropriation of public funds — the formal act by which a legislature sets aside money for a specific governmental purpose — is a second major lawful form.
1b. Unlawful appropriation. To appropriate another's property without consent is to convert it. Depending on the circumstances, unlawful appropriation may constitute conversion, embezzlement, or larceny. In privacy tort law, appropriation refers specifically to the unauthorized use of another person's name, image, or likeness for commercial advantage.
2. As an adjective: Appropriate means suitable, proper, or fitting for a given purpose. This usage appears most prominently in statutory and regulatory contexts — most notably in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's guarantee of a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE), where the meaning of "appropriate" has generated extensive administrative and judicial interpretation.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To take to oneself; to claim or use, especially as by an exclusive right. Also, to set apart for a particular person or use.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Set apart for a particular use or person; hence, belonging peculiarly; suitable; fit; proper.
The everyday word carries both meanings — taking and fitting — but without the legal stakes attached to either. In law, the verb form triggers property acquisition rules, tortious liability, or criminal exposure depending on the context. The adjective form, when embedded in a statute like IDEA, becomes a term of art whose content courts and agencies have spent decades defining. A researcher who reads "appropriate" in a legal document as merely meaning "suitable in a general sense" will miss the operative legal question entirely.
---
Common Confusion
Three distinct legal uses of APPROPRIATE are frequently conflated:
Appropriation as property acquisition (prior appropriation water rights) versus appropriation as unlawful taking (conversion/embezzlement) versus appropriation as a privacy tort. The word is the same; the legal frameworks are entirely different. A researcher working on western water rights and a researcher working on right-of-publicity claims are working in nearly unrelated bodies of law, despite using the same term. Similarly, legislative appropriation — a constitutional and administrative law concept — shares no doctrinal overlap with any of the above. Context is dispositive.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The multi-use character of this term makes corpus searches unreliable without contextual filtering. A full-text search for "appropriate" or "appropriation" in the Law Mind corpus will surface results spanning water law, criminal law, privacy torts, disability education law, legislative procedure, and general property doctrine simultaneously. Researchers should apply secondary filters: co-occurrence with "water" or "diversion" for prior appropriation; with "name or likeness" or "commercial" for privacy; with "funds" or "budget" or "Congress" for legislative contexts; with "FAPE" or "IDEA" for education law.
Historical sources use the term most consistently in the property acquisition sense — taking dominion over previously unowned things — which reflects the 19th-century preoccupation with settlement, resource extraction, and the definition of ownership rights on the frontier. The privacy tort meaning of "appropriation" is a 20th-century development (emerging from Warren and Brandeis and later systematized in the Restatement) and will not appear in older dictionaries in that form.
The adjective use in IDEA and similar statutes represents a different research problem entirely: "appropriate" there is not a common-law term but a statutory one whose meaning has been built up through agency adjudication, federal rulemaking, and Supreme Court interpretation. Researchers should not rely on dictionary definitions — legal or otherwise — to answer what "appropriate" means in the FAPE context; that question is answered by the regulatory and case law record specific to IDEA.
One further trap: legislative appropriation is sometimes discussed in separation-of-powers cases using the noun form "appropriation" in ways that can look superficially like property or tort discussions. The constitutional dimension — that no money may be drawn from the treasury except pursuant to a legislative appropriation — is a structural constraint on executive power, not a property right.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both the first and second editions) leads with the property acquisition sense: to make a thing one's own by exercising dominion over it, particularly as applied to previously unowned or publicly held things. Both editions are consistent and use nearly identical language. The second edition adds a citation to United States authority, signaling that by the early 20th century the term had accumulated judicial elaboration.
Anderson's Dictionary of Law is the most analytically useful of the historical sources. Anderson distinguishes between the lawful taking of previously unowned things (appropriating running water) and the unlawful taking of another's personalty, which he links directly to conversion, embezzlement, and larceny. This is the clearest historical acknowledgment that the same word covers both lawful and unlawful conduct — a distinction that researchers must keep in focus.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry retrieved in the source material does not contain a usable entry for APPROPRIATE; the text produced is from an adjacent entry and reflects a database artifact rather than substantive content. Researchers should not rely on Rapalje & Lawrence for this term.
None of the historical dictionaries address the privacy tort meaning of appropriation, the legislative appropriation concept in any depth, or the statutory adjective use in disability law. These gaps are expected given the publication dates and should not be read as evidence that those uses are illegitimate — they are simply later developments.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The prior appropriation doctrine applies in western states (broadly: states west of the 100th meridian) and departs significantly from the riparian rights system used in eastern states. "Appropriation" in a water law context will mean something legally operative in Colorado or Arizona that it does not mean in Virginia or Ohio. The privacy tort of appropriation is recognized across most U.S. jurisdictions but varies in scope, particularly regarding whether it protects commercial value (right of publicity) or dignitary interests — a distinction that some states treat as a single tort and others treat as two.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia — "Water Rights — Prior Appropriation Doctrine (Western States)"
The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia — "Defamation and Privacy Torts — Invasion of Privacy — Appropriation of Name or Likeness"
The Law Mind Administrative Law & Government Encyclopedia — "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — Free Appropriate Public Education"
---