Definition
CAUSES functions in legal writing primarily as a plural noun, and its meaning depends heavily on context. Three distinct uses appear across the corpus:
1. Legal proceedings or actions. "Causes" is the traditional term for lawsuits, actions, or proceedings pending before a court. A docket of causes is a list of cases scheduled for hearing. In this sense a cause is the proceeding itself — the formal dispute submitted to judicial resolution. Phrases such as "causes at law," "causes in equity," and "causes pending" all use the term this way.
2. Causal factors in liability analysis. In tort law and criminal law, "causes" refers to the operative events, conditions, or acts that bring about a harm or result. This is the analytical sense: courts ask which causes — which contributing factors — are legally sufficient to establish liability or guilt. The inquiry typically splits into actual causes (but-for causation, or substantial factor analysis) and proximate causes (legal causes, defined by foreseeability and policy limits).
3. Grounds or reasons. More broadly, "causes" can mean the grounds for a legal action, motion, or determination — as in "good causes shown" or "causes for removal." Here the term is nearly synonymous with reasons or justifications recognized by law.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Third-person singular simple present indicative of cause — "The accident causes injury."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Plural of cause — "that which produces an effect; that which brings about a change." Also, in older usage, a matter or suit pending in court.
The gap between ordinary and legal usage is worth noting. In everyday English, "causes" is most naturally read as a verb. In legal texts — especially older ones — it appears predominantly as a plural noun meaning either court proceedings or causal factors. A researcher skimming historical pleadings or docket entries who reads "causes" as a verb will misread the text.
---
Common Confusion
CAUSES vs. CAUSE OF ACTION: A cause (proceeding) is not the same as a cause of action (a legally recognized theory of recovery). A single cause — one lawsuit — may contain multiple causes of action. The terms are frequently conflated in older sources where "cause" was used loosely to mean both the suit and the theory sustaining it.
ACTUAL CAUSE vs. PROXIMATE CAUSE: When "causes" appears in liability analysis, researchers must determine which causation inquiry is in play. Actual causation (did the defendant's act in fact bring about the result?) is distinct from proximate causation (is the causal link legally sufficient to impose liability?). Historical sources often blur this distinction or use "proximate cause" to do the work of both inquiries.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The term is a navigation hazard precisely because it is so common and so context-dependent. Three practical warnings:
First, docket and procedural sources. In older English and American court records, "causes" means cases or proceedings. A register of causes is a case list. Searching for "causes" in procedural materials will surface docket entries, not substantive legal analysis.
Second, causation doctrine has evolved significantly. Nineteenth-century tort treatises often treated proximate cause as the only causation inquiry worth discussing; the modern bifurcation into actual cause and proximate cause, with separate tests for each, is largely a twentieth-century development. Researchers using historical sources to interpret modern causation doctrine must account for this shift.
Third, criminal versus tort causation. The causation analysis in criminal law tracks but does not replicate tort doctrine. In criminal law, transferred intent and the treatment of intervening acts diverge from tort rules. Sources written in one context should not be read across to the other without care.
The encyclopedia entries on proximate cause (torts) and causation (criminal law) are the natural next stops for any substantive research into the liability-analysis sense of the term.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence do not provide a substantive entry for CAUSES. The entry retrieved under this search — "JUDGER. A Cheshire juryman. Jacob." — is unrelated and appears to reflect an indexing artifact. Researchers should not rely on Rapalje & Lawrence for this term and should consult Bouvier's Law Dictionary or Black's Law Dictionary (early editions) for historical definitions of "cause" and "causes" in both the procedural and causal senses. Those sources confirm the dual use of "cause" as (1) a legal proceeding and (2) a factor in legal analysis, and they show how "proximate cause" was defined narrowly in the nineteenth century compared to modern formulations.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Causation doctrine varies across American jurisdictions, particularly on proximate cause standards and the treatment of multiple sufficient causes. Some states apply a substantial-factor test; others apply a strict but-for standard with narrow exceptions. The term "causes" in a state court opinion should be read against that jurisdiction's specific causation framework.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia, "Negligence — Proximate Cause (Legal Cause and Foreseeability)"; The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia, "Criminal Law — Causation (Actual Cause and Proximate Cause)"; The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia, "Fourth Amendment — Probable Cause."
---