Definition
A notice of motion is a formal written document filed in a pending case that informs the opposing party — and the court — that the moving party intends to present a motion on a specified date, for a specified purpose. It is a procedural prerequisite to being heard on a motion in most court systems: before a judge can rule on a request, the opposing party must have received adequate warning of what is being sought and when.
The notice typically identifies the court and case (the "caption" or "entitled in a cause"), states the date, time, and sometimes courtroom of the intended hearing, describes the nature of the motion and the relief sought, and is signed by the moving party's attorney. Supporting documents — a memorandum of law, affidavits, proposed orders — are ordinarily served and filed alongside it.
Common Confusion
Notice of motion is not the same as the motion itself. The motion is the substantive request for court action; the notice of motion is the procedural vehicle that puts the opposing party on alert that the motion is coming and when it will be argued. In modern federal practice, these two documents are often merged into a single filing styled "Notice of Motion and Motion for [Relief]," which can blur the distinction. In older practice, and still in many state courts, they remain formally separate instruments. A researcher encountering nineteenth- or early twentieth-century records should not assume that finding a notice of motion means the underlying motion was heard, granted, or even formally filed separately.
Why It Matters in Research
For corpus researchers, notice of motion is primarily a procedural artifact — it marks the opening of a contested motion practice rather than a substantive legal determination. Several research traps follow from this:
First, the notice of motion is not the ruling. Finding a notice in a case file tells you a party intended to seek relief on a given date. It does not tell you the motion was heard, decided, or granted. Researchers tracing the outcome of a dispute must locate the corresponding order or minute entry.
Second, the required content and timing of a notice of motion varies significantly across jurisdictions and time periods. Historical practice in common-law courts often required notice to be given a fixed number of days in advance (sometimes called "days of grace" or "rule days"). Modern federal courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have their own notice and briefing schedules. State courts vary widely. A notice that was procedurally sufficient in New York practice in 1890 may not map cleanly onto any modern standard.
Third, in older records the notice of motion was a standalone document — physically separate from affidavits, supporting briefs, or the motion itself. Digitized collections may have indexed these documents inconsistently, separating notice from motion or grouping them together. When researching historical litigation files, treat the notice as a pointer to surrounding documents, not a self-contained source.
Fourth, ex parte motions — those made without notice to the opposing party — are an important exception. Emergency injunctive relief, certain default applications, and other urgent requests are sometimes granted without prior notice. The absence of a notice of motion in a file does not necessarily mean a motion was not made.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four shelf sources are notably consistent on this term, to the point of verbatim overlap. Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the fullest formulation — "In practice. A notice in writing, entitled in a cause, dated and signed by the attorney of the party in whose behalf it is given, and addressed to the opposite party or his attorney; stating that, on a certain day designated, a motion will be made to the court for the purpose or object stated" — and Black's, Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence all substantially reproduce this language, with Rapalje & Lawrence explicitly crediting Burrill. This convergence reflects how thoroughly Burrill's formulation settled into the common vocabulary of nineteenth-century American legal practice.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the procedural mechanics of how notices were served, the consequences of defective notice, the distinction between notice of motion and the motion itself, or the growing practice of combining both documents into a single filing. For those questions, researchers must turn to procedural treatises and court rules of the relevant period and jurisdiction rather than the general dictionaries.
Jurisdictional Note
Federal courts operating under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require that a written motion state the grounds and relief sought, with the notice function built into the motion itself; Local Rules in each district specify additional timing and formatting requirements. State court practice varies considerably — some states retain a formal notice of motion as a distinct document, while others treat the motion filing itself as providing adequate notice. Researchers working across jurisdictions should consult the applicable rules for the specific court and era.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Pretrial Motions — Motion to Dismiss (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)
Pretrial Motions — Motion to Suppress Evidence (The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia)