QUOD NOTA

Definition

Latin: "which note" or "which mark." A marginal or interlinear annotation used by early English law reporters to signal that the immediately preceding point, rule, or principle deserves particular attention. The phrase functioned as an editorial flag — the reporter's equivalent of underlining — directing readers to a passage of doctrinal significance. It carries no independent legal force; it is an apparatus of legal literature, not a rule of law.

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers working in early English case reporters — Year Books, Dyer, Plowden, and similar pre-modern compilations — will encounter QUOD NOTA without explanation. Misreading it as part of the court's holding or the judge's language is an easy error. The phrase belongs to the reporter, not to the bench. Its presence signals that an editor or reporter considered the adjacent passage noteworthy, which is itself useful information: frequency of QUOD NOTA annotation around a particular passage can indicate that contemporaries regarded it as a significant statement of principle. The reference in the historical dictionaries to Dyer, 23 (Black's 1st ed.) and Dyer, 2 (Black's 2nd ed.) reflects the standard early citation to Sir James Dyer's reports, where the notation appears repeatedly. Researchers using digitized or reprinted versions of Dyer should be aware that page and case numbering can vary across editions, so the specific locator matters less than recognizing the reporter tradition the annotation belongs to. Because QUOD NOTA is a reporter's convention rather than a legal doctrine, it will not appear in statutes, modern opinions, or secondary legal literature except when those sources are themselves discussing historical reporting practices. It is, in effect, a term of legal bibliography as much as legal substance.

Historical Dictionary Support

Black's (both editions) and Burrill agree precisely: "which note; which mark. A reporter's note in the old books, directing attention to a point or rule." The consistency across sources is unsurprising — this is a term with a single, stable, descriptive function that left no room for interpretive divergence. None of the historical dictionaries elaborate on the practice of reporter annotation more broadly or situate QUOD NOTA within the development of English legal reporting. Burrill's entry is marginally more expansive in that it anchors the note to Dyer, 23 and immediately transitions to related maxims, but offers no additional analysis of the annotation convention itself. Historical dictionaries treat this as a lookup item, not a conceptual entry — appropriately so. What the dictionaries collectively omit is any guidance on evaluating the weight or reliability of QUOD NOTA annotations. Not all early reporters exercised equal editorial judgment, and the significance of the flag varied with the reporter's reputation and method. Dyer's reports are generally considered reliable; the same caution about reporter quality that applies to Year Book scholarship applies here.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

No Law Mind Encyclopedia entry directly addresses early English legal reporting conventions. The health_57 entry (Organ Transplantation Law — NOTA, UNOS Allocation, and Living Donor Protections) shares an acronym only and is not relevant.

Related Terms