Definition
In legal usage, immaterial means not relevant, not essential, or not decisive to the matter at hand. A fact, averment, allegation, or issue is immaterial when it neither proves nor disproves any matter properly in controversy and would not, even if established, alter the legal result.
The term operates across several procedural and evidentiary contexts:
(1) Evidence. Immaterial evidence is evidence that, even if true and reliable, does not tend to establish any fact of legal consequence in the proceeding. It concerns facts outside the scope of what is properly at issue.
(2) Pleading. An immaterial averment is a statement in a pleading that alleges with unnecessary particularity circumstances that, while perhaps related to a material point, could have been stated more generally without affecting the legal sufficiency of the pleading. The vice is needless detail, not falsity. Such averments may be subject to a motion to strike.
(3) Issues. An immaterial issue arises when the parties join on a point that, regardless of how it is resolved, does not determine the rights of the parties. A verdict on an immaterial issue does not support a valid judgment.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Of no importance; inconsequential, insignificant, unimportant." Also: "not consisting of matter; incorporeal; spiritual."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Not consisting of matter; incorporeal; spiritual; disembodied." Second sense: "Of no substantial consequence; without weight or significance; unimportant."
The common language carries two distinct senses — incorporeal (lacking physical substance) and unimportant — that have almost nothing to do with each other. Legal usage tracks only the second, and narrows it further. In law, immaterial is not merely unimportant in a general sense; it is a technical conclusion that the fact or allegation in question falls outside the proper scope of the legal inquiry. A detail can be true, interesting, and even significant in ordinary terms while remaining legally immaterial. The incorporeal sense — angels and spirits — has no purchase in legal usage.
---
Common Confusion
IMMATERIAL vs. IRRELEVANT: These terms are frequently used interchangeably in courtroom objection practice — counsel objects "irrelevant, immaterial" as a single compound phrase — but they carry distinct meanings in formal analysis. Irrelevant evidence has no logical tendency to prove or disprove any fact; immaterial evidence may be logically connected but concerns a fact that does not matter to the legal outcome even if proved. Irrelevance is a logical deficiency; immateriality is a legal-scope deficiency. A piece of evidence can be relevant in the logical sense yet immaterial because the fact it tends to prove is not in issue. Modern evidence codes, including the Federal Rules of Evidence, largely collapse this distinction by defining relevance to incorporate materiality (evidence must tend to make a fact of consequence more or less probable), but the analytical difference remains important when reading older cases, treatises, and pleadings.
IMMATERIAL vs. IMPERTINENT: In pleading, impertinent matter refers to allegations that do not belong in the pleading at all — typically because they are scandalous or wholly foreign to the cause of action. Immaterial averments are a narrower problem: the substance is related to a material point but is alleged with unnecessary particularity. Both are grounds for a motion to strike, but the basis differs.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The compound objection "irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent" appears throughout pre-twentieth-century American case law as a formulaic string. Researchers encountering this phrase should not assume the court distinguished between the three concepts; courts often used all three to ensure the objection was preserved regardless of how the trial court analyzed the evidence. When the specific ground matters to your research question, look past the formula to the court's actual reasoning.
The collapse of the irrelevant/immaterial distinction is a twentieth-century development tied to the adoption of modern evidence codes. Pre-Federal Rules sources — and sources from jurisdictions that did not adopt the Federal Rules model — treat the two concepts separately. Reading older treatises or opinions through a modern evidence lens will obscure the distinction the author was drawing.
In pleading law, immaterial averments carry a procedural consequence that researchers must track carefully: they do not make a pleading defective on demurrer, but they can be stricken and, if admitted by the opposing party, do not estop that party or operate as binding judicial admissions to the same degree as material averments. This pleading-specific consequence disappears in modern notice-pleading practice but remains relevant when analyzing common-law pleading records.
The term also surfaces in the law of fraud and misrepresentation, where an immaterial misstatement — one that would not have influenced a reasonable party's decision — may defeat a claim even if the statement was false and known to be false. This use of immaterial tracks the core definition but appears in a substantive, not procedural, context.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries are in consistent, if sparse, agreement. Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Bouvier all define immaterial as "not material, essential, or necessary; not important or pertinent; not decisive." Bouvier adds "impertinent" as a near-synonym — a conflation that, as noted above, is analytically imprecise in strict pleading usage. Burrill adds the phrase "not formally proper," tying the term to pleading deficiency.
Black's Second Edition is the only historical source to define immaterial averment at any length, describing it as a statement of "unnecessary particulars in connection with" what is otherwise material — a useful clarification that the fault is over-specificity, not irrelevance. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references Stephen on Pleading and the entry on IMPERTINENCE, signaling that the distinction between immaterial and impertinent was recognized even in older practice.
Anderson's entry simply redirects to MATERIAL — appropriate for a purely relational term — but leaves the researcher to infer the negation. None of the historical dictionaries address the modern evidentiary context in which materiality is absorbed into the definition of relevance, which reflects the pre-Federal Rules state of the law at the time of their composition.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts and states that have adopted evidence codes modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence no longer treat immateriality as a formally separate ground of objection; it is subsumed within relevance under FRE 401. In states retaining older evidence frameworks, or in specialized proceedings governed by non-FRE codes, the distinction may still operate as a distinct basis for exclusion or for striking pleading allegations.
---