Definition
Latin: "for the sake of example" or "for instance." Used in legal and scholarly writing to introduce one or more illustrative examples that are not exhaustive. The abbreviation e.g. (occasionally rendered ex. gr.) appears far more commonly in practice than the full Latin phrase. When a writer uses e.g., the examples that follow are representative, not a complete list.
---
Common Language
Wiktionary: "For the sake of an example."
Editorial note: The common and legal meanings are essentially identical. The only practical distinction worth noting is register: in formal legal writing, e.g. carries a precise signal — that the list following it is illustrative and non-exhaustive — whereas in ordinary usage the same abbreviation is often deployed loosely or interchangeably with i.e. That slippage between e.g. and i.e. can create interpretive problems in drafting contexts, which is why legal usage holds the distinction more strictly.
---
Common Confusion
E.G. vs. I.E.: These two Latin abbreviations are the most commonly conflated pair in legal drafting. Exempli gratia (e.g.) means "for example" and signals that what follows is a non-exhaustive illustration. Id est (i.e.) means "that is" and signals a complete restatement or precise definition of what precedes it. Substituting one for the other in a contract, statute, or court filing can materially alter meaning: a list introduced by e.g. is open-ended; a list introduced by i.e. is understood to be the entirety of what is meant. Courts have occasionally been asked to resolve ambiguity arising from careless use of these abbreviations in transactional documents.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is primarily a research navigation issue, not a substantive legal concept. Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus will encounter both the full Latin phrase and the abbreviated forms e.g. and ex. gr. across historical and modern sources. Key points:
Historical sources use ex. gr. with some frequency; modern sources have almost entirely standardized on e.g. When searching historical documents or digests, researchers should include ex. gr. as a search variant.
In statutory and regulatory text, the choice between e.g. and i.e. has been treated as a drafting signal with interpretive weight. When analyzing the scope of a statutory list or definitional clause, note which abbreviation the drafter used — courts and agencies have sometimes leaned on this distinction to determine whether a provision is inclusive or exhaustive.
In treatises, judicial opinions, and legal memoranda, e.g. functions as a citation signal as well as a prose device. Some citation style guides (including earlier editions of the Bluebook) address its use in string citations, where it introduces examples without implying the cited sources are the only authorities on point. Researchers should not treat a source introduced by e.g. as the leading or controlling authority — it is offered as one instance among potentially many.
The full phrase exempli gratia rarely appears in modern legal writing outside of dictionaries and formal treatises. If encountered in a historical document, it is not a term of art specific to law; it is standard educated Latin used across legal, scientific, and philosophical writing of the period.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The three source dictionaries are entirely consistent and uniformly brief. Black's Law Dictionary (both first and second editions) defines the term as "for the purpose of example, or for instance" and notes the abbreviations e.g. and ex. gr. Rapalje & Lawrence offers no independent definition, redirecting the reader to the entry for E.G. There is no substantive divergence among sources, no jurisdictional variation, and no historical evolution in meaning. The historical sources accurately capture the term's function but, as is typical for Latin maxims and abbreviations in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century legal dictionaries, provide no guidance on the interpretive consequences of using e.g. versus i.e. in drafting — a gap that modern practitioners and courts have had to fill independently.
---