Definition
Beyond or out of the common order; exceeding the usual, average, or normal measure or degree. In law, the word does not stand alone — it modifies other terms and takes its legal significance from context. Three principal legal uses:
1. EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES. Writs and judicial relief that fall outside the ordinary course of civil or criminal litigation — chiefly mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, prohibition, and certiorari. These are contrasted with the ordinary remedy by action. Courts grant extraordinary remedies only when ordinary remedies are inadequate.
2. EXTRAORDINARY CARE. Synonymous with the greatest care, utmost care, or highest degree of care. The standard applicable in certain relationships or circumstances — historically associated with common carriers and bailees for hire — requiring more than reasonable or ordinary diligence.
3. EXTRAORDINARY AVERAGE (or general average). In maritime and mercantile law, a contribution by all parties concerned in a voyage — as to vessel or cargo — toward a loss sustained by some parties for the benefit of all. Distinguished from particular average, which falls on one party alone.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Anything that goes beyond what is ordinary.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Beyond or out of the common order or method; not usual, customary, regular, or ordinary. Also: exceeding the common degree, measure, or condition; remarkable; uncommon; rare. Also applied to persons employed on unusual or special service, as in "ambassador extraordinary."
The gap between common and legal meaning is one of precision, not reversal. In common speech, "extraordinary" connotes the remarkable or impressive. In law, it functions as a term of art that activates a specific doctrinal framework — whether a heightened standard of care, a non-standard procedural vehicle, or a special maritime loss-sharing rule. A researcher encountering "extraordinary" in a historical legal document should not read it as mere emphasis. It signals a recognized legal category.
---
Common Confusion
EXTRAORDINARY CARE vs. REASONABLE CARE. These are not interchangeable standards. Reasonable care (ordinary care, due care) is the general negligence baseline — what a prudent person would do under the circumstances. Extraordinary care demands more: the highest degree of care that the nature of the activity permits. The distinction matters acutely in common carrier law, where the extraordinary care standard historically governed passenger transportation. Some jurisdictions have collapsed this distinction by statute or case law; others preserve it. Historical sources often use "greatest care," "utmost care," and "extraordinary care" as synonyms — a researcher should treat them as equivalent unless the source signals otherwise.
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY vs. EQUITABLE REMEDY. Not the same category. Many extraordinary remedies are equitable in nature, but the classification "extraordinary" refers to the departure from ordinary procedural channels, not to the equity/law distinction. Injunctions are equitable but not always classified as extraordinary remedies in the strict writ sense. Habeas corpus is technically a common law writ, not equitable.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The word is a modifier, not a standalone doctrine, which means its meaning shifts depending on what it modifies. A researcher must identify which usage is operative in any given source.
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES. The corpus of historical materials on extraordinary writs is spread across common law treatise literature, early federal practice manuals, and state court rules — not consolidated. The availability of these writs changed dramatically after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) absorbed many common law forms of action, and again after statutory habeas corpus was expanded. Sources predating 1938 use "extraordinary remedy" against a backdrop of distinct writ practice that no longer exists in the same form. Post-1938 materials use the term to describe a residual category — narrowed, but not eliminated.
EXTRAORDINARY CARE. The standard appears frequently in 19th-century and early 20th-century negligence cases involving railroads, stagecoaches, and steamboats. Researchers working in tort history will find extensive usage in Illinois, California, and federal circuit reporters from this period. The phrase is also a trap for researchers working in modern materials: some jurisdictions have abandoned the extraordinary care standard for common carriers and replaced it with a reasonable care standard, but older case annotations and digest entries still classify the cases under the older heading.
EXTRAORDINARY AVERAGE. This maritime usage is largely absent from general legal dictionaries after the mid-20th century, having migrated to admiralty and marine insurance treatises. Researchers encountering the term in 19th-century commercial cases should consult admiralty-specific sources rather than general legal dictionaries.
JURISDICTIONAL VARIATION. The term "extraordinary" in writ practice has particular significance in state court systems that retain prerogative writ jurisdiction distinct from statutory appellate procedure. State constitutional provisions sometimes preserve extraordinary writ practice explicitly, creating a parallel research track alongside federal statutory habeas materials.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The five source dictionaries are in substantial agreement on the core meaning — beyond the common order, exceeding the usual measure — but each illustrates a different facet of the legal usage.
Black's (1st ed.) leads with the extraordinary remedies usage, listing mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, then pivots to extraordinary care as synonymous with "greatest care, utmost care, highest degree of care." This dual treatment captures the two primary legal applications but does not define "extraordinary" as an abstract term.
Bouvier's provides the fullest treatment, adding the useful formulation that "extraordinary peril" means what is beyond the ordinary and usual — not what has never previously been heard of. This is a meaningful nuance: the standard is relative to common experience, not absolute novelty.
Rapalje & Lawrence reaches the same list of extraordinary writs and repeats the standard formulation, situating the term in the context of remedies rather than standards of conduct.
Anderson's takes the narrowest approach — "the utmost; the highest under the circumstances" — emphasizing only the care/diligence application and cross-referencing CARE.
Black's (2nd ed.) adds the extraordinary average definition with a citation to California authority, expanding the coverage into maritime and commercial law. This is the most complete of the source entries for a researcher working across doctrinal areas.
What the historical dictionaries collectively miss: they do not address how "extraordinary" functions in equity jurisdiction as a threshold showing — the requirement in injunction practice that the moving party demonstrate circumstances beyond the ordinary before a court will act. This equitable usage is implicit in writ practice but distinct from it, and it persists in modern preliminary injunction standards without being labeled "extraordinary" in most modern formulations.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts use "extraordinary" as a threshold requirement in several distinct procedural contexts — most notably in the standard for mandamus relief from a circuit court and in the "extraordinary circumstances" showing required for certain Rule 60(b) motions. State courts vary: some retain robust prerogative writ practice under state constitutional authority; others have folded extraordinary writ procedures into unified appellate rules. A researcher should not assume federal extraordinary writ doctrine maps onto any particular state's practice.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Coram Nobis and Other Extraordinary Writs — Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia (criminal_240)
Extraordinary Writs and Habeas Corpus — 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255 — Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia (civpro_113)
---