WHO

6 definitions found across Law Mind sources

See encyclopedia: Specialized Tort Topics -- Spoliation of Evidence as Independent Tort →
WHOAuthored
The Law Mind • 777 words
Definition
"Who" is not a term of art in law. It is a standard English relative and interrogative pronoun used throughout legal texts, statutes, and judicial opinions to identify persons, parties, or classes of individuals to whom a rule, right, obligation, or status applies. In statutory drafting, "who" identifies the human subject of a legal provision — the person bearing a duty, holding a right, or qualifying for treatment under the law. As a pronoun, "who" in legal texts typically does one of two things: 1. Identifies a specific party in context ("the plaintiff, who filed suit in 2019…"). 2. Delimits a class of persons subject to a legal rule ("any person who knowingly…"). The second function is substantively important: statutory phrases beginning with "who" define scope, standing, eligibility, and liability. Misreading the referent of "who" in a statute or rule can produce significant interpretive error. ---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Interrogative or relative pronoun referring to a person or persons; also an initialism for the World Health Organization. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): An interrogative and relative pronoun, used substantively, referring to persons; "who" and "whom" ask what or which person or persons; used as a relative in the sense of "that" when applied to persons, as "which" is applied to things. "WHO" as an initialism for the World Health Organization is a distinct usage with no legal-definitional content. It appears in public health law, treaty texts, and regulatory materials. Researchers encountering "WHO" in capitalized form in legal documents should determine from context whether it refers to the pronoun or the international organization, as the interpretive stakes differ entirely. ---
Why It Matters in Research
"Who" becomes legally consequential at the boundary lines of statutory construction. When a statute grants rights or imposes duties on "any person who" meets certain criteria, courts must interpret both the term "person" and the condition introduced by "who." Researchers working with historical statutes should pay attention to whether "who" was understood to include corporations, non-citizens, or other non-natural persons — the answer has shifted over time and varies by statutory context. In corpus research, "who" functions as a connector term. Its analytical value lies not in the word itself but in what it links: the legal subject (often defined elsewhere) to the operative condition. When researching standing, eligibility, or liability rules, trace the full "who" clause rather than isolating the antecedent noun. Researchers using older legal texts should note that relative pronoun usage was less standardized in early English law. "Which" was sometimes used where modern drafting would use "who," even for persons. Burrill's Law Dictionary does not treat "who" as a term of art, and the source material in that dictionary's entry for this search reflects an unrelated passage — a reminder that keyword searches in historical dictionaries will frequently surface false positives where the word appears incidentally in a definition for another term. The WHO initialism appears with increasing frequency in legal materials from the mid-20th century onward, particularly in international health law, pandemic response legislation, and public health regulations. Researchers working in those areas should not assume "WHO" references the pronoun. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary does not contain a standalone entry for "who" as a legal term. The source material surfaced here is a fragment of an unrelated entry — referencing English writ practice and the murder of Leopold, Duke of Austria — in which the word "who" appears only as ordinary grammar. This is a reliable signal that historical legal dictionaries treated "who" as a general linguistic term requiring no specialized legal definition. Webster's 1913 confirms the standard grammatical treatment: "who" and "whom" are interrogative and relative pronouns used substantively for persons. The 1913 definition draws the person/thing distinction (who vs. which) that remains standard in legal drafting guides today, though modern plain-language drafting sometimes relaxes this distinction. No historical legal dictionary source in the Law Mind corpus provides a doctrinal definition of "who," which is consistent with its status as a function word rather than a term of art. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia — Filing Requirements: Who Must File (tax_72) The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia — Wrongful Death and Survival Actions: Who May Bring a Wrongful Death Claim (torts_156) ---
Related Terms
Person — Whom — Standing — Party — Beneficiary — Eligible Person — Taxpayer — Claimant — World Health Organization (WHO)
WHOmain
Burrill's Law Dictionary • 1870
(620) cient English writs are tested and made re- cording to some writers, on the murderers turnable apud Westmonasterium, at Westof Leopold, Duke of Austria, in the 14th minster. Reg. Brev. per tot.
WHOpron.
Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913
Originally, an interrogative pronoun, later, a relative pronoun also; -- used always substantively, and either as singular or plural. See the Note under What, pron., 1. As interrogative pronouns, who and whom ask the question: What or which person or persons Who and whom, as relative pronouns (in the sense of that), are properly used of persons (corresponding to which, as applied to things), but are sometimes, less properly and now rarely, used of animals, plants, etc. Who and whom, as compound relatives, are also used especially of persons, meaning the person that; the persons that; the one that; whosoever. "Let who will be President." Macaulay. [He] should not tell whose children they were. Chaucer. There thou tell'st of kings, and who aspire; Who fall, who rise, who triumph, who do moan. Daniel. Adders who with cloven tongues Do hiss into madness. Shak. Whom I could pity thus forlorn. Milton. How hard is our fate, who serve in the state. Addison. Who cheapens life, abates the fear of death. Young. The brace of large greyhounds, who were the companions of his sports. Sir W. Scott. One; any; one. [Obs., except in the archaic phrase, as who should say.] As who should say, it were a very dangerous matter if a man in any point should be found wiser than his forefathers were. Robynson (More's Utopia).
WHOname
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
Initialism of World Health Organization.
whopron
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
What person or people; which person or people; asks for the identity of someone; used in a direct or indirect question. | Introduces a relative clause having a human antecedent. | With antecedent as subject. | Introduces a relative clause having a human antecedent. | With antecedent as object: whom. | Whoever, he who, they who. | Also used with names of collective nouns that are groups of people, especially singularly-named musical groups or sports teams.
Whoname
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
The television show Doctor Who.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In