Use of Dictionaries in California Statutory Construction

As a general rule, California courts apply the plain meaning rule as a primary pillar of statutory construction, giving words their usual, ordinary, and everyday meaning. When a statutory term lacks an explicit internal definition, courts frequently turn to standard dictionaries to capture that common usage.

So, how are dictionaries usually used in California statutory construction? Courts look to the text first to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. If a word is not defined within the statute itself, judges will resort to general or legal dictionaries such as Black’s Law Dictionary or standard English dictionaries, such as Webster’s, to determine how the term is ordinarily understood.

If the California Legislature provides an explicit, internal definition inside a statute or Code, that statutory definition overrides any ordinary dictionary definition. Judges must follow the specific statutory meaning even if it departs from common usage.

California courts do not read dictionary definitions in a vacuum. Under the Whole Act Rule and context rules (such as noscitur a sociis and in pari materia), a word’s dictionary definition must harmonize with the broader statutory scheme, purpose, and text, rather than conflict with it.

California terms that are defined in statute use either an exhaustive or open scope definition. The term “means” creates an exclusive, comprehensive, or closed-scope definition (i.e., an exhaustive one) that replaces or narrows ordinary dictionary meanings. The terms “includes” or “includes, but is not limited to” create an inclusive or open-scope definition that extends the ordinary dictionary meaning to cover extra items.

Some legal scholars and jurists note that relying solely on dictionaries can create a false sense of certainty because dictionaries define words using other words, which can miss specialized, technical, or context-dependent legislative intent.