Hacker News Reader

Comment by YPPH | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone know why American court opinions tend to omit the word "the" before plaintiff and defendant? For instance

"Afterwards plaintiff sued defendant claiming damages".

In Australia and the UK, this would be

"Afterwards the plaintiff sued the defendant claiming damages".

In general US opinions seem more concise and formulaic than their Anglo counterparts. This is just one striking example. I'm just curious about the origin of this distinction. Perhaps there is some text on concise legal writing prescribed at US law schools which offers such a suggestion?

Another curious difference, it's an opinion in the US, a decision or judgment in Australia/UK.

View on HN

American courts generally give very strict and tight page limits when submitting briefs, so American legal writing has evolved to be concise as possible. The best lawyers regularly and repeatedly cut their briefs to length, removing any superfluous words. There's no requirement to omit "the" before plaintiff and defendant, but it's acceptable and saves space, so everyone does it.

Thanks, this is a very convincing answer.

Aren’t those usually capitalized as well? I’ve always though that style in legal texts means “a proper noun defined previously” - in case of plaintiff and defendant, probably on the first page. That said I have no legal background so take that with a grain of salt.

They would appear capitalised on the cover page, not generally in text.

Here is a recent example from a 2022 SCOTUS opinion.

"In rejecting petitioners’ allegations, the Seventh Circuit did not apply Tibble’s guidance. [...] The court determined that respondents had provided an adequate array of choices, including “the types of funds plaintiffs wanted (low-cost index funds).”"[0]

By contrast, a decision of the High Court of Australia:

"The appellants applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for orders that the third respondent, a former director of Arrium, appear for examination and produce documents. Orders were also sought for the second respondent (the auditor) and the bank who advised on the capital raising to produce certain documents.[1]

[0] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/595/19-1401/

[1] https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2022/HCA/3

At least in US contracts, it's fairly common to establish role based pseudonyms at the beginning of the contract. Especially for reused contracts. Presumably, the same style applies to our legal system.

For example, a contract may read:

This contract is between John Smith (hereafter employee ) and XYZ LLC, a Delaware company (hereafter employer). Employee agrees to provide Employer with services for...

Guessing: it’s an old legal system (not in relative terms, perhaps, but 250 years is a decent chunk of time) and a bunch of the language has stayed pretty similar over time.

I don't think it's the plaintiff. It's John Doe, here by referenced as Plaintiff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com