Definition
A motion is a formal request made to a court or judge, by a party or their counsel, asking the court to issue a rule or order on a specific matter. Motions may arise in the course of pending litigation or, in some cases, may be made independently of any pending action. They are a primary procedural tool through which parties manage the course of a case — raising defenses, compelling or limiting discovery, seeking dismissal, excluding evidence, or requesting other judicial action.
Motions take two broad forms:
1. Motions in a pending proceeding: Applications made during the progress of a case to address specific procedural or substantive needs as they arise — e.g., motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, motions in limine.
2. Motions independent of a pending action: Applications made on a summary basis unconnected to plenary proceedings — e.g., an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
A motion may be made orally in open court or submitted in writing. Modern practice in most jurisdictions requires written motions in all but the most routine oral applications. Where written, a motion is typically accompanied by a supporting memorandum of law and, where facts are in dispute, by affidavits or declarations.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A change whereby something goes from one place to another; movement through space. Also, in parliamentary and meeting procedure, a proposal put to a vote.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act, process, or state of changing place or position; movement; the passing of a body from one place or position to another.
The common definitions center on physical movement or parliamentary proposal. The legal definition retains the parliamentary sense — a formal proposal requesting action — but strips the physical movement meaning entirely and situates the concept within court procedure specifically. The connection is etymological and structural: in law, a motion is a proposal that "moves" a court to act.
Common Confusion
MOTION VS. PETITION VS. PLEADING
These terms are sometimes used loosely as synonyms, but they refer to distinct procedural instruments. A pleading is a foundational document that frames the parties' claims and defenses (complaint, answer). A petition initiates a proceeding or seeks extraordinary relief, often establishing a court's jurisdiction over a matter. A motion is an interlocutory request for a specific ruling within or ancillary to proceedings already before the court. In practice, some jurisdictions use "petition" and "motion" interchangeably in certain contexts (e.g., post-conviction relief), which creates navigational difficulty in historical sources.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
The range of recognized motions is broad and varies by procedural context. Major categories include:
Pretrial motions: Motion to dismiss, motion to suppress evidence, motion for change of venue, motion in limine, motion for summary judgment.
Discovery motions: Motion to compel, motion for protective order.
Trial motions: Motion for directed verdict (now judgment as a matter of law in federal practice), motion to strike.
Post-trial motions: Motion for new trial, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), motion to alter or amend judgment.
Post-conviction and appellate motions: Motion to reopen, motion to reconsider, motion for rehearing.
Administrative and agency motions: Motions to reopen and reconsider in immigration proceedings carry specialized rules distinct from civil litigation practice.
Why It Matters in Research
The term "motion" is stable in its core meaning across historical sources, but several research traps deserve attention.
Written vs. oral form: Historical sources, including Bouvier's and Burrill's, describe motions as frequently made verbally ("viva voce, in open court"). Modern practice has largely formalized the written motion requirement, with oral motions reserved for routine procedural matters during hearings. Researchers reading historical records should not assume that the absence of a written motion document means no motion was made.
Motions unconnected to a pending action: Rapalje & Lawrence's distinction between motions in a cause and motions made "summarily, without reference to any pending action" is practically important and sometimes overlooked. This category captures applications like habeas corpus petitions, which occupy a hybrid space that historical sources classify inconsistently.
Anderson's "own motion" sense: Anderson's Dictionary of Law flags an older usage — "of his own motion" or "sua sponte" — describing a court acting on its own initiative without application by any party. This usage survives in modern law (courts may dismiss sua sponte, for example), but it functions as a term of art rather than a procedural instrument. Researchers encountering "motion" in this sense in older texts should recognize it as a description of voluntary judicial action, not a procedural filing.
Immigration context: Motions to reopen and motions to reconsider in immigration proceedings are governed by specialized federal regulatory frameworks with strict deadlines, numerical limits, and exceptions (including changed country conditions) that differ substantially from civil litigation motion practice. Corpus materials in this area require awareness of agency-level procedure, not just court procedure.
Jurisdictional labeling variation: What one jurisdiction calls a "motion to dismiss" another may style as a "demurrer" (common in older California and equity practice) or a "plea in bar." When searching historical state court records or equity proceedings, researchers should run parallel searches using jurisdiction-appropriate terminology.
Historical Dictionary Support
The six shelf sources are in close agreement on the core definition: a motion is an application to a court or judge for a rule or order. Bouvier's is the most practical in its framing, noting that motions exist both to advance the progress of a cause and "to get relieved in a summary manner from some matter which would work injustice" — a formulation that captures the equity-adjacent function of many motions. Burrill's is the most formal, specifying that motions are typically "founded generally on affidavit" and made "viva voce, in open court," reflecting a procedural expectation that modern practice has substantially displaced.
Black's first and second editions track closely, both using "occasional application" to distinguish motions from the principal pleadings that frame a case, and both acknowledging the category of motions "wholly unconnected with plenary proceedings." The second edition adds case citations in support of this structure.
Anderson's Dictionary of Law is the outlier in one respect, offering the sua sponte "own motion" sense as a distinct definition alongside the procedural one — a useful reminder that "motion" in historical texts occasionally describes judicial initiative rather than party application.
Rapalje & Lawrence's entry, as excerpted in the source material, is brief and confirms the two-category structure (motions in pending actions and motions made summarily without a pending action) without adding independent doctrinal content. The surrounding Rapalje text on mortmain statutes appears to be a retrieval artifact unrelated to the motion entry.
None of the historical sources anticipate the elaboration of motion practice into the highly formalized systems of modern federal and state procedure, including page limits, briefing schedules, meet-and-confer requirements, and electronic filing. These layers are products of twentieth- and twenty-first-century rulemaking and are not reflected in historical dictionary treatments.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal motion practice is governed primarily by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 7, 11, 12) and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 47), with local rules adding significant variation by district. State practice varies considerably: some states retain older procedural forms such as the demurrer in place of or alongside the motion to dismiss. Immigration motion practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration courts is governed by the Code of Federal Regulations and Board precedent decisions, creating a parallel procedural system with its own deadlines and standards.