Definition
In legal usage, COMPARE carries two distinct meanings that operate in entirely different contexts and should not be conflated.
1. As a citation signal: A directive appearing in legal citations and judicial opinions instructing the reader to examine a cited authority alongside the current discussion — not because the cited source is directly on point, but because the comparison illuminates a distinction, tension, or contrast. As a signal, "compare" is weaker than "see" and functions to say: look at this source and notice how it differs from, or complicates, what has just been said. In this sense it is a tool of legal reasoning and citation craft, not a substantive doctrine.
2. As a Scots law term (archaic): In Scottish legal usage, "compare" meant to compound — that is, to settle a matter, particularly a debt or claim, by mutual agreement or composition. This meaning is now obsolete in active practice but appears in historical Scots law sources and early English chancery records.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To assess similarities and differences between two or more things; to examine and evaluate the qualities of persons or things in relation to one another. Also used grammatically to form degrees of comparison in adjectives.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To examine the character or qualities of two or more persons or things for the purpose of discovering their resemblances or differences; to bring into comparison; to regard with discriminating attention.
The common meaning and the citation-signal meaning are closer than they appear but diverge in a critical way: in ordinary usage, "compare" is neutral as to outcome — the reader draws their own conclusion. In legal citation practice, "compare" signals a specific argumentative purpose. It tells the reader that the cited authority does not simply support the proposition but that reading the two sources together will reveal a meaningful legal distinction or tension. A researcher who treats "compare" as equivalent to "see" or "accord" will misread the weight and direction of the authority being marshaled.
The Scots law meaning — to compound or settle — has no relationship to the common English meaning and represents a false cognate that can mislead researchers working in historical sources.
---
Common Confusion
Two confusions recur in research:
First, "compare" as a citation signal is frequently misread as equivalent to "see also" or "accord." It is not. The Bluebook and comparable citation manuals treat "compare" as signaling that the juxtaposition of authorities reveals a point of contrast or analytical tension. Treating it as a simple supporting citation misrepresents the argument.
Second, the Scots law meaning (to compound or settle) has no connection to the citation-signal meaning or the ordinary English meaning. Researchers encountering "compare" in early Scottish or chancery records may be reading a term about settlement of claims, not an instruction to examine two sources side by side. Burrill's single entry captures this archaic usage; it should not be projected onto modern legal texts.
---
Why It Matters in Research
For researchers working in the Law Mind corpus, "compare" presents different challenges depending on the source period and document type.
In modern judicial opinions and briefs, "compare" appearing as a citation signal is doing argumentative work. When you see it, the author is asking you to hold two authorities in tension — the comparison is the point. Identifying what the two sources disagree about, or how they produce different outcomes on similar facts, is often the key to understanding the legal argument being made. Skimming past the cited authority defeats the purpose.
In historical sources — particularly Scots law materials, early English chancery records, and any pre-nineteenth-century documents referencing Scottish practice — "compare" may mean something entirely different: to compound, settle, or reach a composition on a claim. Lord Hardwicke's usage cited in Burrill (Ambleside 185) is the primary historical anchor for this meaning. Researchers working on debt settlement, chancery compositions, or early Scots private law should flag this usage and not interpret it through the lens of modern citation practice.
The corpus connections most likely to activate the citation-signal meaning are comparative fault and comparative negligence materials. In that doctrinal context, "compare" is not functioning as a citation signal at all — it is part of the substantive legal doctrine (comparing the fault of multiple parties to apportion liability). Researchers should distinguish between "compare" as a directive in a citation string and "comparative" as a descriptor within the tort doctrine of apportioned liability.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides a single, compact entry: "Sc. To compound. Lord Hardwicke, Ambl. 185." This tells researchers three things: the meaning is distinctly Scottish in origin, it means to settle by composition, and Lord Hardwicke recognized and applied it in English chancery practice. The entry makes no reference to the citation-signal usage, which is unsurprising given the period — standardized citation signals as we now understand them developed largely in the twentieth century through law review and court practice rather than through doctrinal treatises.
Historical legal dictionaries generally do not address "compare" as a citation signal because that usage belongs to the procedural and rhetorical conventions of legal writing rather than to substantive doctrine. Researchers should not expect to find the modern signal meaning in any historical dictionary source. The Scots law compound meaning is the only legally distinct meaning these sources were equipped to record.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Defenses to Negligence — Comparative Fault (Pure vs. Modified Systems) (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
Products Liability — Defenses (Misuse, Alteration, Comparative Fault) (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
Note: These entries address comparative fault as substantive tort doctrine — a related but distinct use of "compare" and its derivatives. Researchers should not conflate the citation-signal function of "compare" with the tort law doctrine of comparative fault, even though both involve the act of measuring one thing against another.
---