Be Careful With the Verb “Find”

Dear 1L, Be careful with the verb “find.”

Do not use it to describe a court’s holdings in your brief this spring. “Find” and “hold” mean very different things.

“But Amanda,” you say, “many lawyers—even judges—use ‘find’ generically all the time to describe the actions courts take.”

 —I know. You are right about that. But that does not make using “find” right.

🔹 An appellate court doesn’t “find” anything. It renders conclusions of law, not fact.

True, when reviewing de novo, the appellate court will examine and evaluate the facts of the case quite exactingly.

But the court is doing so to assess whether those facts—as a whole—are enough to meet a legal standard; the court is NOT “finding” that those facts did or did not actually occur.

🔹 Trial courts don’t “find” facts most of the time, either.

On a motion for summary judgment, for instance, trial courts make rulings based on law. No facts are “found.”

To be sure, there are non-jury bench trials and other miscellaneous proceedings where trial courts make factual findings.

But unless you’re dealing with one of those, writing “the court found” is just sloppy.

And the court cases you’re dealing with for your brief this semester involve decisions on legal principles, not findings of fact.

So use a verb other than “find” when discussing what the courts did.

💌 Amanda

🗳️ Litigators: What say you?

#Dear1L
#DearLegalWriter