Definition
To state means to express, set forth, or articulate something in written or spoken form. In legal usage the term carries two distinct senses depending on context:
1. To state in full or in detail: To express the particulars of a matter completely — to set down facts, terms, or elements at length. This is the operative sense when a pleading, affidavit, or legal instrument is said to "state" a claim, account, or cause of action. The implication is sufficiency and completeness: a party who states a claim has articulated its constituent elements with enough specificity to be acted upon.
2. To state in gross or by general reference: To mention a matter in general terms, without full enumeration of particulars — to refer to something in summary fashion. This narrower, secondary usage appears in contexts where the law permits or requires only summary identification rather than detailed recitation.
The distinction between these two senses is not merely stylistic. Whether a legal instrument has "stated" something within the meaning of a rule or statute may depend on which sense applies — and courts have specifically adjudicated which sense controls in particular contexts.
___
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): To state means to say or express something, particularly in a formal, explicit, or declaratory manner. General English treats "to state" as synonymous with "to declare" or "to assert."
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To set forth in words; to narrate; to recite; to express the particulars of. Webster's recognized that stating could be either detailed or summary depending on context.
The gap between common and legal meaning is subtle but consequential. In ordinary English, "to state" simply means to say something. In legal usage, "to state" implies a standard of sufficiency — particularly in pleading, where failing to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted" is a formal ground for dismissal. The common speaker does not associate "stating" with minimum threshold requirements or with the distinction between statement in full versus statement in gross. A researcher treating "to state" as equivalent to "to mention" may miss the precision the law attaches to the term.
___
Common Confusion
TO STATE vs. TO ALLEGE: These terms are frequently used interchangeably in legal writing, but they carry different weight. To allege is to assert a fact as true for purposes of argument or pleading, without necessarily establishing it. To state, in its fuller legal sense, implies a more complete or definitive articulation — a claim is "stated" when its elements are sufficiently set forth, whereas allegations may be provisional or contested. In modern federal pleading practice, the operative standard asks whether a complaint "states" a claim, not merely whether it alleges one.
TO STATE vs. TO AVER: To aver is a term of art in pleading meaning to assert positively, typically as to a specific fact. To state is broader and pertains to the articulation of a matter as a whole, including both factual and legal components.
___
Why It Matters in Research
This term appears with high frequency in procedural and pleading materials across the Law Mind corpus, and its meaning shifts depending on whether the source is addressing substantive expression or formal sufficiency.
The critical research trap is the two-sense problem documented by Burrill. When reading historical cases or instruments, a researcher must determine which sense of "to state" the court or drafter intended. The New York case Burrill cites (6 Hill's R. 300) specifically held that "to state" in the context before the court meant statement in gross — by general reference — not statement in full. This holding illustrates that the fuller sense is not automatic, and that statutory or contractual language using "to state" may impose a lower threshold than expected.
In modern pleading research, "failure to state a claim" is a formalized concept under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its state equivalents. Researchers tracing the doctrinal history of that standard will find that the language "states a claim" has roots in older pleading requirements about whether a declaration or complaint sufficiently "stated" the cause of action — connecting modern procedural doctrine to the fuller, first sense of the term.
When researching historical accounting materials — "stating an account" appears frequently in equity practice — the term means to prepare and present a formal account in detail, invoking the first sense exclusively.
Jurisdictional usage of "to state" in constitutional documents (particularly in "the facts shall be stated" provisions of state constitutions governing judicial opinions) is a separate application researchers should not conflate with pleading usage.
___
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the only direct entry in the current shelf sources, and it is notably careful. Burrill distinguishes the two operative senses explicitly and supports the second (statement in gross) with a specific New York citation, signaling that the distinction had been contested at common law and required judicial resolution.
What Burrill's entry does not address is the pleading-specific development of "to state" as a threshold sufficiency standard — a usage that became formalized only with the codification of pleading rules in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Researchers relying solely on Burrill for the modern procedural sense of the term will find the entry incomplete for that purpose; it captures transactional and documentary usage (accounting, recitation, case-stating) more fully than it captures procedural sufficiency doctrine.
No divergence appears within the shelf sources because only one source addresses the term directly. The gap, rather, is between Burrill's scope and the subsequent development of the term in procedural law — a common limitation when historical dictionary coverage predates major procedural reform.
___