Definition
A Latin maxim meaning "as to this" or "with respect to this particular matter." Used to limit or qualify the scope of a legal statement, right, obligation, prohibition, or proceeding to a specific subject or issue, without affecting the remainder. When a legal instrument, order, or argument operates quoad hoc, it applies only to the designated matter and carries no implication beyond it.
The term appears most frequently in two contexts:
1. Partial prohibitions: A writ of prohibition issued quoad hoc restrained a party from pursuing only specified matters in a particular court, leaving unaffected any claims or proceedings not covered by the restriction.
2. Qualified admissions or stipulations: A party may concede something quoad hoc — acknowledging a fact or legal consequence for a limited purpose only, without general admission.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "as far as this"
Historical common usage: Not recorded in Webster's 1913 as an English entry; the phrase remained within Latin usage throughout the relevant period.
The everyday approximation "as far as this" captures the directional sense but misses the technical legal function. In legal usage, quoad hoc is not merely a spatial or logical qualifier — it is a term of art that surgically limits the reach of a legal act, order, or statement to a precise subject matter, foreclosing any inference that the act extends further.
Common Confusion
Quoad hoc is occasionally confused with quoad omnia ("as to all things"), its logical opposite. A prohibition or concession quoad hoc is expressly partial; one quoad omnia is total. Researchers encountering either phrase in historical pleadings or ecclesiastical court records should confirm which formulation was used before drawing conclusions about the scope of the underlying legal act.
Why It Matters in Research
Quoad hoc is primarily a historical research term. It appears frequently in English ecclesiastical court records, common law pleadings, and early equity practice — especially in materials concerning writs of prohibition issued by the temporal courts against proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. Researchers working with pre-nineteenth-century English legal materials, colonial American court records, or canon law sources will encounter it regularly.
The key research trap is scope. When a historical document records a prohibition or order using quoad hoc, the limitation is substantive, not stylistic. A prohibition quoad hoc blocked only the specific matters identified; other matters before the same court were unaffected. Failing to recognize the partial nature of such an order will produce a misreading of the procedural history.
In American sources, the term appears in treatises and early reported cases but largely drops from active use by the late nineteenth century. Its presence in a mid-nineteenth-century case is often a marker of English common law heritage or ecclesiastical jurisdiction questions carried over from colonial practice (notably in probate, marriage, and tithe-related disputes).
Corpus researchers should note that quoad hoc may appear in abbreviated or corrupted form in older print transcriptions (e.g., "q. h." or typesetting errors in the second edition of Black's, where "i. e." appears garbled). Collation across multiple editions is advisable when the phrase appears in a critical passage.
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries agree on the core translation — "as to this" or "with respect to this" — and on the central illustration involving ecclesiastical court prohibitions. Black's (both editions) and Rapalje & Lawrence substantially reproduce the same explanatory text, suggesting a common ancestor source (likely English practice manuals). Burrill's is the most economical, providing only the Latin gloss and a Bracton citation, which confirms the phrase's deep common law lineage.
None of the historical dictionaries addresses the use of quoad hoc in the context of qualified admissions or stipulations, which is a distinct application that developed through pleading practice and appears in treatise literature outside these dictionary entries. Researchers should not treat the ecclesiastical court illustration as exhaustive.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry contains a typographical interruption mid-sentence, likely a scanning artifact, with unrelated maxims interspersed. The Black's 2nd edition similarly contains a typesetting error ("i. e., a3 to" for "i.e., as to"). Neither corrupts the substantive meaning, but both confirm the need for source verification in digitized historical legal texts.
Jurisdictional Note
Quoad hoc is not a term of active statutory or regulatory use in any U.S. jurisdiction today. Its significance is historical and doctrinal, concentrated in English common law, ecclesiastical jurisdiction disputes, and early American courts that inherited English pleading forms. Scottish and canon law sources use the phrase with the same meaning.