Definition
In legal usage, to *show* means to make apparent or clear by evidence — to prove, demonstrate, or establish a fact or legal position to the satisfaction of a court or tribunal. The term appears most frequently in procedural contexts: a party is directed to "show" something when a court requires that party to come forward with evidence or argument sufficient to establish a point.
The term carries specific procedural weight in several common phrases:
1. *Show cause* — A court directive requiring a party to appear and explain why a particular order should not issue or why a prior order should not be enforced. The burden rests on the responding party to affirmatively demonstrate sufficient reason. See: SHOW CAUSE ORDER, RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.
2. *Show of force / show of authority* — In Fourth Amendment and criminal procedure contexts, police conduct that would lead a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave, potentially triggering constitutional protections even absent physical restraint.
3. *Make a showing* / *sufficient showing* — The act of presenting evidence or argument adequate to satisfy a legal standard, threshold, or burden. Courts frequently direct parties to make a "prima facie showing," a "sufficient showing," or a "particularized showing" as a prerequisite to obtaining relief.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A play, entertainment, broadcast program, exhibition, demonstration, or outward display. Also used colloquially for mere appearance without substance ("all show," "for show").
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To exhibit or present to view; to place in sight; to display — with emphasis on visual presentation.
The gap matters: In everyday English, "show" centers on visual display or performance. In legal usage, the term is divorced almost entirely from visual presentation and instead functions as a synonym for *prove* or *demonstrate to the court's satisfaction*. A party ordered to "show" something is not merely exhibiting evidence — they are bearing a burden of persuasion or production. Treating "show" as a casual invitation to present materials, rather than a directive to satisfy a legal standard, is a common reading error in older opinions and court orders.
---
Common Confusion
SHOW vs. INDICATE: The historical dictionaries are explicit on this point and the distinction remains practically relevant. To *show* is to prove — to make apparent or clear by evidence. To *indicate* is to suggest, point toward, or give direction to the mind without necessarily establishing the fact. An indication may amount to no more than a symptom or inference. In evidentiary and appellate contexts, the difference is significant: a court that finds evidence "indicates" a fact has not necessarily found that the fact was shown (proved). Researchers reading opinions must attend to which word the court actually uses — conflating the two can distort the significance of a holding.
---
Why It Matters in Research
**Procedural weight in court orders.** "Show" in a court directive is a term of art, not a casual invitation. When a historical order commands a party to "show" a fact, it is imposing a burden. Research into older equity practice, mandamus proceedings, and contempt proceedings will surface this usage constantly. Failure to read "show" as burden-imposing rather than merely descriptive will cause researchers to misread the procedural posture of a case.
**The show cause mechanism.** The rule to show cause is one of the most durable procedural devices in Anglo-American law, appearing in equity, criminal, and administrative contexts. In the Law Mind corpus, it connects directly to discussions of injunctive relief, contempt, habeas corpus, and summary administrative action. The phrase "show cause" should always prompt the researcher to identify: who bears the burden, what standard governs it, and what happens by default if no showing is made.
**Show vs. indicate in evidentiary analysis.** Because historical courts used these terms with technical precision, the distinction surfaces in appellate review of sufficiency-of-evidence questions. An appellate court's characterization of trial evidence as "indicating" rather than "showing" a fact may signal that the court views the proof as falling short of the applicable standard. Researchers analyzing evidentiary sufficiency arguments across historical cases should track this word choice carefully.
**Search term caution.** "Show" is an extremely high-frequency term in legal texts and produces enormous noise in full-text corpus searches. Researchers should anchor searches to compound forms — "show cause," "fail to show," "sufficient showing," "make a showing" — rather than the bare term.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources are in close agreement on the core definition. Black's (both editions), Anderson's, and Bouvier's all converge on the formulation drawn from *Coyle v. Commonwealth*: to show is to make apparent or clear by evidence; to prove. This is a notably tight consensus for a common procedural term.
All sources join in distinguishing "show" from "indicate," treating the latter as something weaker — a symptom or pointer rather than proof. Black's 2nd edition provides the case citation (*Coyle v. Com.*, 104 Pa. 1338) that anchors this distinction in Pennsylvania appellate authority.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry reproduced here appears to be a scanning artifact relating to a separate entry on "shooting" rather than a substantive entry on "show." Researchers relying on that volume should verify the relevant page directly.
Anderson's cross-references "Show cause" to his entry on RULE, which is consistent with the historical treatment of show cause as a species of the *rule* or *rule nisi* device inherited from English equity and common law practice.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the constitutional valence of "show of authority" in search and seizure law, and the modern administrative law usage in which agencies must make particularized showings to justify regulatory action. These are 20th-century developments not reflected in the 19th-century sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The show cause mechanism is universal across American jurisdictions but procedural details vary — particularly the default consequence of a party's failure to appear or respond. In some jurisdictions, failure to appear on a show cause order results in the requested relief being granted automatically; in others, the moving party must still establish entitlement on the merits. Researchers should not assume uniformity when working across jurisdictions or historical periods.
---