Definition
Concurrent means operating together, at the same time, or with equal authority. In legal usage, the word appears across multiple distinct doctrines, each trading on one of two core ideas: (1) simultaneity — occurring at the same time — or (2) coordinate authority — two or more entities holding equivalent power over the same subject matter. The term does not imply merger or subordination; concurrent things run alongside each other, neither displacing the other.
1. Concurrent jurisdiction: Two or more courts, or two sovereigns, holding equal authority to adjudicate the same matter. Neither court is superior in that domain; a party may generally choose between them.
2. Concurrent sentences: Multiple criminal sentences that run simultaneously rather than end-to-end. A defendant serving two concurrent five-year sentences serves five years total, not ten.
3. Concurrent causes: Two or more independent forces that together produce a single result. Each contributing cause operates at the same time and each is a but-for or contributing cause of the outcome.
4. Concurrent consideration: In contract law, mutual promises made at the same time, each serving as consideration for the other.
5. Concurrent writs: Duplicate original writs issued simultaneously for service in different locations when the defendant's whereabouts are unknown.
6. Concurrent ownership: Two or more persons holding property rights in the same property at the same time, as in tenancy in common or joint tenancy.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): One who, or that which, concurs; a joint or contributory cause. One pursuing the same course or seeking the same objects; hence, a rival or opponent. Also used to describe supernumerary calendar days that concur with the solar cycle.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Acting in conjunction; agreeing in the same act or opinion; contributing to the same event or effect; cooperating. Conjoined; associate; concomitant; existing or happening at the same time.
The common-language definitions capture the general meaning accurately. The legal significance lies not in the word itself but in which doctrine it modifies — concurrent jurisdiction, concurrent sentences, concurrent causation, and concurrent ownership each carry distinct technical rules that the plain word alone does not signal.
Common Confusion
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION VS. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
Concurrent jurisdiction means both forums have authority; exclusive jurisdiction means only one forum may hear the matter. Federal subject-matter jurisdiction is sometimes exclusive (e.g., patent, bankruptcy) and sometimes concurrent with state courts. The two concepts are frequently confused in historical sources that use "jurisdiction" loosely.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
— Concurrent jurisdiction (courts or sovereigns)
— Concurrent sentences (criminal sentencing)
— Concurrent causation (tort and insurance law)
— Concurrent consideration (contract law)
— Concurrent writs (historical civil procedure)
— Concurrent ownership (property law: tenancy in common, joint tenancy, tenancy by the entirety)
— Concurrent conditions (contract law: mutual conditions that must be satisfied simultaneously)
Why It Matters in Research
Concurrent is a connector word: its meaning in any given source is determined entirely by the doctrine it modifies. Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should treat it as a flag pointing to one of several distinct bodies of doctrine rather than a self-contained concept.
In historical sources, concurrent jurisdiction was one of the central tensions of American federalism and appears extensively in debates over the scope of federal court authority through the nineteenth century. Early sources may use concurrent jurisdiction to describe state-federal overlap in ways that do not map cleanly onto modern preemption doctrine — the two ideas are related but not identical.
In criminal law research, concurrent versus consecutive sentencing was not always made explicit in historical records, and some jurisdictions had different default rules. The encyclopedia entry on Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences addresses this navigational problem directly.
In tort and insurance research, concurrent causation doctrine became particularly contested in the late twentieth century in the context of property insurance policies that attempted to exclude losses caused in part by an excluded peril. Historical tort sources use concurrent cause primarily to discuss joint tortfeasors and apportionment — a different analytical frame than the insurance context.
For property research, concurrent ownership is the umbrella term covering tenancy in common, joint tenancy, and tenancy by the entirety. Historical sources sometimes use the phrase loosely; the distinctions between these forms matter significantly for survivorship rights, partition, and creditor claims.
The Rapalje & Lawrence source material retrieved for this entry does not contain a definition of concurrent — the excerpt appears to concern admiralty pleading procedure and conclusions of pleadings. Researchers relying on Rapalje & Lawrence for concurrent should note this gap.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (both first and second editions) defines concurrent consistently: "Having the same authority; acting in conjunction; agreeing in the same act; contributing to the same event; contemporaneous." This formulation bundles the authority-based and simultaneity-based meanings without distinguishing between them — appropriate for a single-word definition but insufficient to navigate between doctrines.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary is the most practically useful historical source for this term. Bouvier explicitly works through the major applications: concurrent consideration in mutual promises, concurrent jurisdiction between courts, and concurrent writs as duplicate originals issued for simultaneous service. Bouvier's treatment of concurrent writs is the most detailed among the historical sources and is the primary reference for researchers working with pre-nineteenth-century English civil procedure, where the device was an established practice when a defendant's location was uncertain.
Webster's 1913 aligns closely with the legal sources, emphasizing cooperation and simultaneity. The 1913 definition's examples — including concurrent testimony and concurrent causes of reformation — suggest that the term was well understood in its non-technical sense in ways that supported its legal use without requiring special definition.
No historical source in the shelf addresses concurrent causation in insurance, concurrent conditions in contract, or the modern sentencing doctrine in detail. These are areas where the historical dictionaries trail the doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
Concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts varies by subject matter under U.S. law; some areas are exclusively federal and some are exclusively state, with a substantial middle ground that is genuinely concurrent. The default rule on concurrent versus consecutive sentences in the absence of a court's express direction differs across American jurisdictions and has shifted over time.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Criminal Law — Concurrence of Elements (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Concurrent Ownership — Tenancy in Common (The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia)