Definition
Definitions, in legal usage, refers to two distinct concepts that share a name but operate in fundamentally different ways:
1. Interpretive clauses within a legal instrument — statutes, contracts, regulations, or pleadings — that assign fixed meanings to terms used throughout that document. A definitions section does not create rights or obligations; it controls how other provisions are read. When a statute or contract defines a term, that definition governs even if it differs from ordinary usage or common law meaning.
2. The plural of "definition" in the general sense: statements that set out the meaning of legal terms, whether found in dictionaries, treatises, judicial opinions, or administrative guidance. In this sense, definitions are the raw material of legal interpretation — the building blocks courts use to resolve ambiguity.
Both senses appear constantly in legal research, but conflating them produces errors. The first sense is document-specific and binding within its instrument. The second sense is interpretive authority of varying weight, depending on source.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Plural of definition — statements that explain the meaning of a word or concept.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "An exact enunciation of the constituents which make up the logical essence of a thing" — the act of stating what a thing is, with precision.
Editorial note: In ordinary usage, a definition simply explains what a word means. In legal instruments, a definitions section does something more: it creates a controlled vocabulary that overrides external meaning within that document's four corners. A reader who treats a statutory or contractual definition as merely explanatory — rather than as a binding operational rule — will misread the provisions that follow.
---
Common Confusion
Two distinct research errors arise around this term.
First, researchers sometimes treat dictionary definitions (including legal dictionary definitions such as Bouvier's) as having the same authority as a statutory or contractual definitions clause. They do not. A legal dictionary definition is persuasive interpretive authority at best; a definitions clause in a contract is binding on the parties, and a statutory definitions section controls judicial interpretation of that statute.
Second, historical legal dictionaries — including Bouvier's — sometimes place definitions of specific terms within entries that are nominally about "definitions" as a category but are actually discussing something else entirely. The Bouvier's entry associated with this term, for instance, pivots immediately into a discussion of judgment forms (judgment of assets in futuro, cassetur breve, and related terms). Researchers encountering such entries in historical sources must recognize when a dictionary author has used "definitions" as an organizational header for what is actually substantive doctrine on an unrelated topic.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Definitions sections are among the most consequential — and most overlooked — portions of any legal instrument. Several research traps are worth flagging explicitly.
Historical statutory interpretation relied heavily on ordinary meaning and common law definitions; modern textualism gives far greater operative weight to express statutory definitions. A researcher working across historical and modern materials may find courts interpreting the same term differently not because the law changed substantively, but because the interpretive methodology did.
In the Law Mind corpus, definitions appear in multiple registers: as standalone dictionary entries (Bouvier's, Black's), as interpretive clauses embedded in primary source documents (statutes, regulations, contracts), and as judicial glosses in case law. These are not interchangeable. The authority and scope of each type differs, and corpus searches that surface all three without distinguishing among them will produce misleading results.
Jurisdictional variation matters acutely here. Federal statutory definitions do not migrate into state law interpretations of similar terms, and vice versa. A defined term in a federal regulation controls only within that regulatory scheme.
When researching a specific term's meaning, the correct sequence is: (1) check whether the governing instrument contains an express definitions clause; (2) if so, apply that definition; (3) only if no express definition exists does interpretive authority from dictionaries and case law become the relevant inquiry.
The Bouvier's entry nominally filed under this term is a case study in a different problem: historical legal dictionaries sometimes used "definitions" as a loose organizational category, filing substantive entries about procedural doctrines (here, judgment forms) under the heading without analytical connection. Researchers using Bouvier's or similar historical sources should be alert to entries that announce a definitional purpose but deliver substantive doctrine — and vice versa.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary does not offer a general treatment of "definitions" as a legal concept in the entry associated with this term. Instead, the entry pivots to a catalog of judgment forms — judgment of assets in futuro, cassetur breve, cassetur billa, and related procedural categories — without explanation of why these appear under a definitions heading. This is representative of a broader organizational pattern in 19th-century legal dictionaries: terms were sometimes grouped by a compiler's logic that is not immediately apparent to modern researchers.
What Bouvier's does elsewhere, and what contemporaneous dictionaries like Black's Law Dictionary do systematically, is provide working definitions for terms of art — definitions that courts of the era treated as persuasive authority when statutory or common law sources were silent. That function should not be confused with the binding definitions-clause function that dominates modern statutory and transactional practice.
Historical legal dictionaries predate the modern legislative drafting convention of opening complex statutes with an express definitions section. Researchers working with pre-20th-century primary sources should expect that term meanings were resolved primarily by judicial interpretation and common law usage, not by embedded statutory definitions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind corpus contains relevant treatments of definitions in context:
— Negligence — Definition, Elements, and Overview (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia): Demonstrates how courts construct operative definitions of legal standards through case law rather than legislative definition.
— Contracts — Offer (Definition, Requirements, and Duration) (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia): Illustrates the role of judicially developed and contractually embedded definitions in governing transactional disputes.
— Adjusted Gross Income Definition and Significance (The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia): A direct example of a statutory definitions clause at work — the tax code's definition of AGI controls throughout that statutory scheme regardless of ordinary meaning.
---