Definition
A Latin term meaning "unjust" or "that which is unlawful or contrary to right." In legal usage, *injustum* appears most commonly as the operative word in the maxim *Injustum est, nisi tota lege inspecta, de una aliqua ejus particula proposita judicare vel respondere* — "It is unjust to judge or respond as to any particular part of a law without examining the whole of the law." The term itself denotes that which is not in accordance with *jus* (right or law), whether by violating positive law or by offending natural justice. Its significance in Anglo-American legal literature is almost entirely as a component of interpretive maxims rather than as a standalone doctrinal term.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Not entered as an English word. Recognizable to speakers of Latin or Romance languages as meaning "unjust" or "unfair."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not entered. The English cognate "unjust" is defined as "acting contrary to the standard of right; not animated by justice; wrongful."
The gap worth noting: while the English "unjust" carries a broad moral and colloquial charge, *injustum* in legal sources functions as a term of art embedded in Latin maxims. Encountering it in a legal text rarely signals a freestanding moral judgment — it almost always signals a rule of construction or a principle of jurisprudence being invoked.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter *injustum* almost exclusively in two contexts: collections of Latin legal maxims and treatises or opinions citing those maxims as interpretive authority.
The most important practical consequence is the interpretive maxim it anchors. The principle that no part of a statute should be construed in isolation — that the whole enactment must be surveyed before a part is given meaning — is one of the enduring canons of statutory construction. When older English and American cases invoke *injustum* in this form, they are not making a moral claim; they are invoking what we would now call the "whole-act rule" or "holistic interpretation" canon.
Trap for historical researchers: In older reports and digests, the maxim is sometimes truncated, and the word *injustum* appears without the remainder of the phrase. A researcher who does not recognize the maxim's full form may misread the passage as a general statement about unjust conduct rather than a rule about statutory reading.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry is itself a caution: it appears embedded mid-entry for "Innkeeper," suggesting the maxim was cited in a case arising in that context. This placement illustrates how Latin maxims were deployed across subject-matter areas as general interpretive tools rather than doctrinal rules confined to any one field of law.
Corpus connections: Searches for *injustum* in the Law Mind corpus will return primarily maxim collections, equity treatises, and judicial opinions invoking the whole-act canon. Cross-referencing with *tota lex*, *jus*, and *judicare* will recover related maxim usage. The term rarely appears in modern American judicial opinions except in historically-minded scholarship or opinions quoting older authority directly.
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence is the sole dictionary source provided, and their treatment is instructive more for what it shows than for what it explains. The editors do not define *injustum* as a standalone entry but embed the maxim *Injustum est, nisi tota lege inspecta...* within the "Innkeeper" entry, citing 8 Co. 117b (Coke's Reports). This placement confirms that the term had no independent doctrinal life in Anglo-American law — it lived entirely within the maxim.
The Coke citation (8 Co. 117b) is the classical English authority for this interpretive principle. Coke's articulation of the maxim gave it durable authority across centuries of English and American legal reasoning. Historical dictionaries generally do not give *injustum* its own entry, treating the maxim as the unit of legal meaning rather than the individual Latin word. Researchers should not expect to find robust standalone treatment of this term in Bouvier, Black, or comparable reference works; the entry point is always the maxim itself.
Jurisdictional Note
As a Latin maxim rather than a statutory or common law term of art, *injustum* in its maxim form has been cited in both English and American courts without significant jurisdictional variation in meaning. Its authority is persuasive rather than binding, and its weight in modern litigation depends on the court's receptivity to canonical interpretive principles.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Maxims of Law
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Statutory Interpretation (Whole-Act Rule)
Law Mind Encyclopedia — Jus