Why are legal motions so formal in language?












1















I just received a motion from my spouse which begins:




NOW COMES Petitioner, XYZ, by and through her attorney, ABC, and Petitions this Court to Enter an Order directing the parties to...




I have two questions:




  1. Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?

  2. Why the seemingly random capitalization?


Is there any deeper meaning to this for the courts? This is a state court system Circuit Court in the US handling Domestic Relations










share|improve this question









New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    What you mean to say is that this is a state court system Circuit court in the United States, which is a general jurisdiction court that can handle divorces. A U.S. Circuit Court is a federal appellate court above U.S. District Courts and below the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not a trial court and does not have divorce jurisdiction.

    – ohwilleke
    5 hours ago











  • Thanks - I've updated this accordingly

    – Dancrumb
    1 hour ago
















1















I just received a motion from my spouse which begins:




NOW COMES Petitioner, XYZ, by and through her attorney, ABC, and Petitions this Court to Enter an Order directing the parties to...




I have two questions:




  1. Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?

  2. Why the seemingly random capitalization?


Is there any deeper meaning to this for the courts? This is a state court system Circuit Court in the US handling Domestic Relations










share|improve this question









New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    What you mean to say is that this is a state court system Circuit court in the United States, which is a general jurisdiction court that can handle divorces. A U.S. Circuit Court is a federal appellate court above U.S. District Courts and below the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not a trial court and does not have divorce jurisdiction.

    – ohwilleke
    5 hours ago











  • Thanks - I've updated this accordingly

    – Dancrumb
    1 hour ago














1












1








1








I just received a motion from my spouse which begins:




NOW COMES Petitioner, XYZ, by and through her attorney, ABC, and Petitions this Court to Enter an Order directing the parties to...




I have two questions:




  1. Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?

  2. Why the seemingly random capitalization?


Is there any deeper meaning to this for the courts? This is a state court system Circuit Court in the US handling Domestic Relations










share|improve this question









New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I just received a motion from my spouse which begins:




NOW COMES Petitioner, XYZ, by and through her attorney, ABC, and Petitions this Court to Enter an Order directing the parties to...




I have two questions:




  1. Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?

  2. Why the seemingly random capitalization?


Is there any deeper meaning to this for the courts? This is a state court system Circuit Court in the US handling Domestic Relations







united-states






share|improve this question









New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago







Dancrumb













New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









DancrumbDancrumb

1064




1064




New contributor




Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Dancrumb is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    What you mean to say is that this is a state court system Circuit court in the United States, which is a general jurisdiction court that can handle divorces. A U.S. Circuit Court is a federal appellate court above U.S. District Courts and below the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not a trial court and does not have divorce jurisdiction.

    – ohwilleke
    5 hours ago











  • Thanks - I've updated this accordingly

    – Dancrumb
    1 hour ago














  • 1





    What you mean to say is that this is a state court system Circuit court in the United States, which is a general jurisdiction court that can handle divorces. A U.S. Circuit Court is a federal appellate court above U.S. District Courts and below the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not a trial court and does not have divorce jurisdiction.

    – ohwilleke
    5 hours ago











  • Thanks - I've updated this accordingly

    – Dancrumb
    1 hour ago








1




1





What you mean to say is that this is a state court system Circuit court in the United States, which is a general jurisdiction court that can handle divorces. A U.S. Circuit Court is a federal appellate court above U.S. District Courts and below the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not a trial court and does not have divorce jurisdiction.

– ohwilleke
5 hours ago





What you mean to say is that this is a state court system Circuit court in the United States, which is a general jurisdiction court that can handle divorces. A U.S. Circuit Court is a federal appellate court above U.S. District Courts and below the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not a trial court and does not have divorce jurisdiction.

– ohwilleke
5 hours ago













Thanks - I've updated this accordingly

– Dancrumb
1 hour ago





Thanks - I've updated this accordingly

– Dancrumb
1 hour ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














"Now comes" is a bit of history, dating back to when litigants personally appeared before a feudal lord, or a little later before a judge, and made their cases one at a time. " by and through her attorney," is slightly later history, a remnant of the period when lawyers were a bit unusual in such courts, and it was worth noting then a person "appeared" via a lawyer rather than in person. I don't know that these have much value now, but they seem to me to do no harm.



The capital letters I know of no reason for.



Legal documents have always tended to be very conservative in style and language, imitating models from the past and not making any change that could be avoided. English courts recorded their proceedings in French up to around 1500 as I recall, and he statute enacting that English be used in future was itself written in French. (That was so-called "Law French", rather more changed from the original than Church Latin is from that of Julius Caesar.) Phrases become fossilized.



Still I think there is some value in formality, within reason. Legal documents are important things, even vital in many cases. They should be carefully drafted, not casually. But jargon for the sake of it is not of value, as I see it.






share|improve this answer































    2















    Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?




    "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts.



    Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned.



    These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom).



    But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form.




    Why the seemingly random capitalization?




    The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.)



    Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name.



    Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings.



    Enter was improperly capitalized.



    Petitions is improperly capitalized.



    (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.)



    Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "617"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Dancrumb is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36369%2fwhy-are-legal-motions-so-formal-in-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2














      "Now comes" is a bit of history, dating back to when litigants personally appeared before a feudal lord, or a little later before a judge, and made their cases one at a time. " by and through her attorney," is slightly later history, a remnant of the period when lawyers were a bit unusual in such courts, and it was worth noting then a person "appeared" via a lawyer rather than in person. I don't know that these have much value now, but they seem to me to do no harm.



      The capital letters I know of no reason for.



      Legal documents have always tended to be very conservative in style and language, imitating models from the past and not making any change that could be avoided. English courts recorded their proceedings in French up to around 1500 as I recall, and he statute enacting that English be used in future was itself written in French. (That was so-called "Law French", rather more changed from the original than Church Latin is from that of Julius Caesar.) Phrases become fossilized.



      Still I think there is some value in formality, within reason. Legal documents are important things, even vital in many cases. They should be carefully drafted, not casually. But jargon for the sake of it is not of value, as I see it.






      share|improve this answer




























        2














        "Now comes" is a bit of history, dating back to when litigants personally appeared before a feudal lord, or a little later before a judge, and made their cases one at a time. " by and through her attorney," is slightly later history, a remnant of the period when lawyers were a bit unusual in such courts, and it was worth noting then a person "appeared" via a lawyer rather than in person. I don't know that these have much value now, but they seem to me to do no harm.



        The capital letters I know of no reason for.



        Legal documents have always tended to be very conservative in style and language, imitating models from the past and not making any change that could be avoided. English courts recorded their proceedings in French up to around 1500 as I recall, and he statute enacting that English be used in future was itself written in French. (That was so-called "Law French", rather more changed from the original than Church Latin is from that of Julius Caesar.) Phrases become fossilized.



        Still I think there is some value in formality, within reason. Legal documents are important things, even vital in many cases. They should be carefully drafted, not casually. But jargon for the sake of it is not of value, as I see it.






        share|improve this answer


























          2












          2








          2







          "Now comes" is a bit of history, dating back to when litigants personally appeared before a feudal lord, or a little later before a judge, and made their cases one at a time. " by and through her attorney," is slightly later history, a remnant of the period when lawyers were a bit unusual in such courts, and it was worth noting then a person "appeared" via a lawyer rather than in person. I don't know that these have much value now, but they seem to me to do no harm.



          The capital letters I know of no reason for.



          Legal documents have always tended to be very conservative in style and language, imitating models from the past and not making any change that could be avoided. English courts recorded their proceedings in French up to around 1500 as I recall, and he statute enacting that English be used in future was itself written in French. (That was so-called "Law French", rather more changed from the original than Church Latin is from that of Julius Caesar.) Phrases become fossilized.



          Still I think there is some value in formality, within reason. Legal documents are important things, even vital in many cases. They should be carefully drafted, not casually. But jargon for the sake of it is not of value, as I see it.






          share|improve this answer













          "Now comes" is a bit of history, dating back to when litigants personally appeared before a feudal lord, or a little later before a judge, and made their cases one at a time. " by and through her attorney," is slightly later history, a remnant of the period when lawyers were a bit unusual in such courts, and it was worth noting then a person "appeared" via a lawyer rather than in person. I don't know that these have much value now, but they seem to me to do no harm.



          The capital letters I know of no reason for.



          Legal documents have always tended to be very conservative in style and language, imitating models from the past and not making any change that could be avoided. English courts recorded their proceedings in French up to around 1500 as I recall, and he statute enacting that English be used in future was itself written in French. (That was so-called "Law French", rather more changed from the original than Church Latin is from that of Julius Caesar.) Phrases become fossilized.



          Still I think there is some value in formality, within reason. Legal documents are important things, even vital in many cases. They should be carefully drafted, not casually. But jargon for the sake of it is not of value, as I see it.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          David SiegelDavid Siegel

          7,8311036




          7,8311036























              2















              Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?




              "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts.



              Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned.



              These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom).



              But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form.




              Why the seemingly random capitalization?




              The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.)



              Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name.



              Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings.



              Enter was improperly capitalized.



              Petitions is improperly capitalized.



              (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.)



              Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.






              share|improve this answer




























                2















                Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?




                "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts.



                Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned.



                These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom).



                But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form.




                Why the seemingly random capitalization?




                The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.)



                Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name.



                Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings.



                Enter was improperly capitalized.



                Petitions is improperly capitalized.



                (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.)



                Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.






                share|improve this answer


























                  2












                  2








                  2








                  Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?




                  "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts.



                  Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned.



                  These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom).



                  But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form.




                  Why the seemingly random capitalization?




                  The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.)



                  Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name.



                  Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings.



                  Enter was improperly capitalized.



                  Petitions is improperly capitalized.



                  (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.)



                  Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.






                  share|improve this answer














                  Why the highly formalized language of "Now comes..."?




                  "NOW COMES" is traditional ("Comes Now" is actually more common even though it is even more formal and awkward), a bit like "WHEREAS" in contracts.



                  Modern legal writing disfavors this wording in the first sentence of a legal document and I usually omit it unless I know that the judge is very old fashioned.



                  These days, when a lawyer is in front of a court in person, the lawyers starts to speak about something by saying "May it please the court" (another traditional phase emphasizing deference to the fact that the judge can throw you in jail if you are rude without a trial in a courtroom).



                  But, people used to say, "NOW COMES" instead and that phrase stuck in written form.




                  Why the seemingly random capitalization?




                  The capitalization is not completely correct in your example. Some people have the bad habit of capitalizing every word that they think is important, which is not proper in English. (For what it is worth, in German, all nouns are capitalized.)



                  Petitioner should be capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun in lieu of someone's name.



                  Court should be capitalized here because the rule is that the word Court is capitalized when you are talking about the court that you are in, but in lower case when you are talking about another court's rulings.



                  Enter was improperly capitalized.



                  Petitions is improperly capitalized.



                  (In general, probably as a residual of the fact that English is a Germanic language, verbs are almost never capitalized unless they are defined terms or are the first word in a sentence.)



                  Order is capitalized when it refers to a particular order that already exists, but should be in lower case here when it is referring to an order that is being requested in the future.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  ohwillekeohwilleke

                  47.1k255121




                  47.1k255121






















                      Dancrumb is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Dancrumb is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Dancrumb is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Dancrumb is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36369%2fwhy-are-legal-motions-so-formal-in-language%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Costa Masnaga

                      Fotorealismo

                      Sidney Franklin