Definition
As used in law, *notoriously* means in a manner that is well and generally understood by those in the relevant community — visible, unconcealed, and of such a character that a reasonable person would be aware of it. The term functions primarily as an adverb modifying conduct or possession, describing the quality of openness with which an act is performed rather than its fame or ill repute.
In its most common legal setting — adverse possession — *notoriously* describes the character of a claimant's use of land: the use must be conducted in a way that puts the true owner on constructive notice that someone is asserting a claim. The possession need not be literally known to the owner, but it must be the kind of use that an attentive owner would discover upon reasonable inspection.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "In a notorious or notable manner; as is commonly known." In everyday speech, *notoriously* almost always carries a negative connotation — a person or place is notorious for something bad or shameful.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's defined *notorious* as "generally known and talked of by the public; universally known; famous; — usually in an unfavorable sense."
The gap matters for legal research. In legal usage, *notoriously* carries no negative moral valence. A farmer who openly cultivates a disputed field is possessing *notoriously* in the legal sense, even if nothing disreputable attaches to the conduct. Researchers importing the common meaning may misconstrue judicial language describing perfectly ordinary, visible conduct as implying something scandalous or blameworthy.
Common Confusion
*Notoriously* is frequently read as a synonym for *openly* in adverse possession doctrine, but the two terms do slightly different work. *Openly* addresses whether the possession is unconcealed; *notoriously* addresses whether the character of that possession is such that it would register with a reasonable owner as a claim of right. A use can be technically visible (open) but so ambiguous or minor in character that it fails the notorious standard. Courts sometimes collapse the two, which can produce imprecision in older opinions.
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research significance of *notoriously* is its role as a term of art in the adverse possession formula. Researchers working through property cases — particularly those decided before the twentieth century — should expect to find the term deployed without extended definition, as courts treated it as self-evident. The sparse treatment in Bouvier's (a single sentence citing a federal report) reflects this assumption.
Watch for jurisdictional variation in how courts operationalize the notorious standard. Some jurisdictions ask whether the true owner had actual knowledge; others apply a purely objective constructive-notice standard. Older cases in equity sometimes used *notoriously* more loosely, closer to its common meaning of general public knowledge, which can create false equivalences if read alongside modern adverse possession doctrine.
In historical sources, *notoriously* also appears outside property law — in criminal procedure (notorious offenders, notorious crimes) and in equity pleading (notorious facts requiring no proof). These usages share the core sense of general public knowledge but carry distinct doctrinal freight. A researcher encountering the term in a criminal or equity context should not assume the adverse possession gloss applies.
The connection between this adverb and the noun form *notoriety* — and the adjective *notorious* — is worth tracking through corpus materials. Courts sometimes use the noun and adjective forms with slightly different emphasis, and historical dictionaries (including Bouvier's) define the forms inconsistently.
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's sole entry — "Well and generally understood" — is compact but accurate. The citation to 46 Fed. Rep. 724 grounds the definition in case usage rather than abstract principle, consistent with Bouvier's generally practical character. The definition aligns with the constructive-notice framing that modern courts use, suggesting doctrinal continuity on this point.
What Bouvier's does not address is the normative dimension that later courts developed: not merely that the use is understood, but that it is the kind of use that *should* put an owner on notice — an objective standard rather than a purely factual one. Researchers relying on Bouvier's alone will have the core meaning but may miss the evaluative layer that modern adverse possession analysis adds.
Jurisdictional Note
While adverse possession is universally recognized, the notorious element is applied with varying strictness. Some states require evidence that the true owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's use; others focus entirely on the objective character of the possession. Research in any specific jurisdiction should consult that state's formulation independently rather than relying on a general common-law statement.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Adverse Possession — Elements (Actual, Open, Notorious, Exclusive, Continuous, Hostile), The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia