All Legal Opinions
Court Opinion | United States v. Robinson
United States v. Robinson
No. 22-4588 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2024).
Corpus linguistics is used to support an interpretation of “strangulation” in this recent court opinion.
Court Opinion | Margda Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School
MARGDA PIERRE-NOEL v. BRIDGES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL
No. 1:23-cv-00070 (TNM).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
April 6, 2023.
Courts may assess the customary usage of a phrase by searching relevant databases of naturally occurring language. This method is known as corpus linguistics. . . .
Court Opinion | Taylor v. Nicholson-Williams, Inc.
Taylor v. Nicholson-Williams, Inc.
368 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023).
Corpus linguistics is noted as a tool to offer more probative evidence of what statutory language meant to the public at the time of enactment.
Court Opinion | Cargill v. Garland
Cargill v. Garland
57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023).
The Corpus of Historical American English is used to research the phrase “function of the trigger”.
Court Opinion | United States v. Rice
United States v. Rice
36 F.4th 578 (4th Cir. 2022).
Corpus linguistics is used to support the conclusion that the ordinary public meaning of strangulation involved intentional conduct. it is noted that corpus linguistics is gaining traction as an interpretive tool.
Court Opinion | Jones v. Bonta
Jones v. Bonta
34 F.4th 704 (9th Cir. 2022).
Thought corpus linguistics isn’t ultimately applied to the case, it is noted as a powerful tool.
Court Opinion | United States v. Carson
United States v. Carson
55 F.4th 1053 (6th Cir. 2022).
BYU’s Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca) is cited in confirming the understanding of the term “substantial”.
Court Opinion | Fulkerson v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Fulkerson v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
No (6th Cir. June 3, 2022).
Corpus linguistics is used to assess the usage of the term “reckless driving” and the way it fits within the ordinary meaning of “crime”. It is noted that corpus linguistics can foster a more rigorous analysis of a term’s ordinary meaning than a dictionary can.
Court Opinion | Matthews v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona
Matthews v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona
No. CV-21-0192-PR (Ariz. Nov. 23, 2022).
The usefulness of corpus linguistics is noted. In this case, it is used to clarify the meaning of “accident by injury”.
Court Opinion | Gulf Shores City Board of Education v. Mackey
GULF SHORES CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Mackey
No. 1210353 (Ala. Dec. 22, 2022).
Corpus linguistics is highlighted as a research tool that aids the difficult issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Court Opinion | Rouch World v. Department of Civil Rights
ROUCH WORLD v. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS
987 N.W.2d 501, 510 Mich. 398 (2022).
The Corpus of Historical American English is used to provide evidence regarding how the public understood the meaning of sex discrimination in the 1970s.
Court Opinion | State v. Carter
State v. Carter
504 P.3d 179, 2022 U.T. App 9 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
Carter undertakes an extremely thorough analysis with the assistance of corpus linguistics, dictionaries, and case law of the phrase “used for” in the statutory definition of “habitable structure” to establish that the statute defines these structures based on their current use.
Court Opinion | Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc. v. Biden
Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Biden
599 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (M.D. Fla. 2022).
Corpus linguistics is used to find the customary usage of the term “sanitation”.
Court Opinion | United States v. Seefried
United States v. SEEFRIED
No. 21-cr-287 (TNM) (D.C. Oct. 31, 2022).
Publicly available databases of language, such as lncl8.lawcorpus.byu.edu, are used to identify the meaning of “administration of justice”.
Court Opinion | Kudos Inc. v. Kudoboard LLC
KUDOS INC. v. KUDOBOARD LLC
No. 20-cv-01876-SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2021).
In a case of trademark genericness, corpus linguistics is used to analyze the terms “kudo” and “kudos”.
Court Opinion | United States v. Scott
United States v. Scott
990 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2021).
Corpus linguistics is used to analyze the phrase “use of physical force”.
Court Brief | State v. Misch
State v. Misch
256 A.3d 519, 2021 V.T. 10 (Vt. 2021).
BYU’s Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA) and Corpus of Early Modern English (COEME) are mentioned in their use of analyzing the phrase “bear arms”.
Court Opinion | State v. Burke
State v. Burke
462 P.3d 599, 166 Idaho 621 (2020).
References the emerging field of corpus linguistics as a tool that moves beyond dictionaries when defining legal terms.
Court Opinion | US v. Woodson
US v. Woodson
960 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2020).
Woodson’s argument is not supported when viewed through the lens of corpus linguistics, which is cited as a critical tool in resolving interpretive questions.
Court Opinion | Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik
466 P.3d 178, 2020 U.T. 29 (Utah 2020).
While this court opinion doesn’t specifically use corpus linguistics to support an argument, but it offers a step by step analysis of the uses of corpus linguistics, as well as important strategies for using the tool effectively within its footnotes.
Amicus Brief | Salgado v. United States
Salgado v. United States
Brief for the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Salgado v. United States, case citation (No. 19-659).
Amicus Brief | Wright v. Spaulding
Wright v Spaulding
Brief for Law and Linguistics Research Team on Behalf of Neither Party, Wright v. Spaulding, No. 17-4257 (6th Cir. 2019).
Supplemental Brief
Court Opinion | Richards v. Cox
Richards v. Cox
2019 UT 57, 450 P.3d 1074, 1079-81 (Utah 2019) (Supreme Court of Utah September 13, 2019).
Available here
Majority opinion using COCA (Corpus of Contemporary English) and COHA (Corpus of Historical American-english) to explore the possible meanings of “employment” found in the Utah state constitution.
Court Opinion | State v. Lantis
State v. Lantis
447 P.3d 875, 880-81 (Idaho 2019) (Supreme Court of Idaho Aug. 23, 2019).
Available here
analyzing data from COHA (Corpus of Historical American-english) related to the use and meaning of “disturbing the peace” from 1887
Court Opinion | Caesars Entertainment Corp. v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers
Caesars Entertainment Corporation v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Pension Fund
932 F.3d 91, 95 (3rd Cir. 2019)
Available here.
Court Opinion | Wilson v. Safelite
Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc.
930 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2019) (Thapar, J., concurring).
Available here
demonstrating the corpus evidence against the “requires” meaning of “results in” and the “until a certain time” sense of “extending to”
Amicus Brief | Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle U.S., Inc.
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.
Court Opinion | Carpenter v. United States
Carpenter v. United States
138 S.Ct. 2206, 2235, 2238-39 (2018) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
Available here
first mention of Law & Corpus Linguistics in SCOTUS; Justice Thomas’ dissent and citation makes reference to corpus linguistic sources, including COFEA (Corpus of Founding Era American-english)
Court Opinion | Fire Ins. Exch. v. Oltmanns
Fire Insurance Exchange v. Oltmanns
416 P.3d 1148, 1163 n.9 (Utah 2018) (Durham, J., concurring).
Available here.
Court Opinion | People v. Harris
People v. Harris
885 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. 2016).
Available here.
majority opinion arguing for corpus linguistics and the use of COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American-english) in deciding whether “information” includes the notion of false statements
Court Opinion | State v. Rasabout
State v. Rasabout
356 P.3d 1258, 1271-90 (Utah 2015) (Lee, A.C.J., concurring).
Available here.
Justice Lee asserts the need for tools like corpus linguistics in the face of competing definitions of “discharge” in relation to a firearm
Court Opinion | In re the Adoption of Baby E.Z.
In the Matter of the Adoption of Baby E.Z.
266 P.3d 702, 715-32 (Utah 2011) (Lee, J., concurring)
Available here.
In making a precise judgement about the circular definition of custody determination, corpus linguistics makes its first appearance in a court opinion
Amicus Brief | FCC v. AT&T Inc.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc. et al.
Brief for the Project on Government Oversight, the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, and Tax Analysis as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011) (No. 09-1279).