Definition
"Preceding" and "following" are positional reference words used in statutes, codes, and legal instruments to designate adjacent provisions relative to the one in which the reference appears. When a statute uses "the preceding section" or "the following section," it points to the section immediately before or immediately after the referencing section — unless the instrument expressly designates a different, non-adjacent section.
The terms carry a precise default meaning in statutory drafting: absent explicit designation otherwise, "preceding" means the section next before and "following" means the section next after. This default is not merely a convention — some jurisdictions have codified it as a rule of statutory construction.
In broader legal usage, both words also appear as standalone qualifiers in substantive legal doctrine:
1. PRECEDING: Describes something that comes before in time, order, or position. Used in procedural rules (a preceding term of court), evidentiary contexts (preceding conduct), and property law (preceding estate or interest).
2. FOLLOWING: Describes something that comes after. Critically, "following" has developed a distinct technical meaning in equity and property law: the power to trace or pursue property through successive transfers, transformations, or commingling. This usage — sometimes phrased as "following property" or "following funds" — is distinct from the ordinary positional meaning.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Preceding" means coming before in time, order, or position. "Following" means coming after, succeeding, or resulting from.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Preceding" — going before; anterior; prior. "Following" — coming after or subsequent; attendant; in the same direction.
The positional meanings carry directly into most legal usage without significant gap. The difference worth flagging is in equity: "following" as a term of art in tracing doctrine does not simply mean "coming after" — it means actively pursuing an asset through transformations and into the hands of third parties. A researcher reading "following the property" in an equity opinion is reading a legal conclusion about the reach of equitable remedies, not a statement about sequence.
---
Common Confusion
Do not conflate "following" in the positional/statutory sense with "following" as equitable tracing. In statutory construction, "the following section" is a simple cross-reference. In equity opinions and restitution law, "following misappropriated property" describes the claimant's right to pursue an asset that has changed form or location. The two usages appear in entirely different research contexts, but a researcher scanning equity cases for statutory interpretation signals — or vice versa — can misread the operative meaning. See the Remedies & Equity Encyclopedia entry on tracing for the equity-specific doctrine.
Similarly, do not confuse "condition precedent" with the positional word "preceding." "Precedent" in contract law is a term of art meaning a condition that must be satisfied before an obligation arises; it is not simply the adjectival form of "preceding section." The etymological connection is real, but the doctrinal content diverges sharply.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The primary research value of understanding this phrase is navigational and interpretive — knowing what a cross-reference actually points to.
Statutory codes before comprehensive codification were frequently reorganized, renumbered, and consolidated. A statute's internal reference to "the preceding section" can become ambiguous or misleading after a recodification moves sections around. Researchers working with pre-codification or early codification statutes must verify that "the preceding section" at the time of enactment still corresponds to the same provision after reorganization. Do not assume modern numbering matches original intent.
Kentucky's codified rule — that "preceding" and "following" mean the section next before or next after unless otherwise designated — is an example of how jurisdictions resolved interpretive uncertainty by statute. Not all jurisdictions have such explicit rules. Where no rule of construction is codified, courts have generally applied the same default (next adjacent section), but the absence of a codified rule means more room for argument.
For equity and property research: the tracing sense of "following" is central to constructive trust, equitable lien, and unjust enrichment claims. "Following property" is the pre-Lipkin Gorman doctrinal vocabulary; modern restitution scholarship increasingly separates "following" (same asset through changes of form) from "tracing" (identifying a substitute asset). Researchers using older equity treatises and digests will encounter "following" as the dominant term for what modern scholarship calls tracing. Be alert to this shift when moving between periods.
In contract interpretation, "preceding" sections of a contract may be incorporated by reference in later provisions, creating interpretive questions about scope and integration. The parol evidence rules and conditions-precedent doctrine both engage with timing and ordering of contractual obligations — areas where positional language in the instrument itself becomes substantive.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's is the primary source here and its treatment is narrow but precise. The entry directly cites Section 462 of the Kentucky Statutes as a codified rule of construction: "preceding" and "following" mean the next preceding or next following section unless another is expressly designated. Bouvier's frames this as a jurisdictionally specific but representative resolution of an interpretive problem latent in any cross-referencing statute.
Bouvier's adjacent entry on precedents (Rev. 172) touches on written forms sanctioned by courts or professional usage — a different sense of "preceding" entirely, in the root of "precedent" as authoritative prior practice. This is not a definition of "preceding" as a positional word, but it illustrates how the same Latin root produces distinct legal terms that must not be conflated.
What historical dictionaries miss: the equitable tracing sense of "following" receives essentially no treatment in the classical law dictionaries, which handle it obliquely under entries for tracing, constructive trust, and equitable remedies. Researchers relying solely on dictionary sources for the equity doctrine will need to supplement with equity treatises.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Kentucky has codified the default meaning of "preceding" and "following" in statutory cross-references. Other jurisdictions apply the same default by judicial construction without codification. Researchers working with statutes from jurisdictions lacking an explicit rule of construction should confirm through case law whether the next-adjacent default has been affirmed in that jurisdiction, particularly in older or reorganized codes.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Remedies & Equity Encyclopedia — Tracing: Following Misappropriated Property Through Exchanges and Commingled Funds (for the equitable doctrine)
Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia — Interpretation: Conditions (Express, Implied, Constructive; Precedent, Concurrent, Subsequent) (for condition precedent and the timing of contractual obligations)
Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia — Interpretation: Exceptions to the Parol Evidence Rule (Fraud, Mistake, Condition Precedent) (for parol evidence and conditions in context)
---