Thread: Articles

Originally Posted by Timon

Thank you. But could we dwell on it?
1. As to "file suit". My first assumption was also that "to file suit" be a phrasal verb. I guess it is one. But i do not see the difference. Could you or anyone else explain?

2. As to "defendant" "plaintiff" etc without a determiner. You explaination sounds reasonable and i have found the same on another one forum. The only thing makes me doubt is the contex of all other sentences with these words having no article. For examle:
- As you can readily imagine, it is very important that each defendant be notified that he has been sued, and it is equally important that plaintiff be able to prove that each defendant was notified.
- A motion to dismiss asks the judge to find that there is
something wrong with a claim as it appears in plaintiff’s complaint.
- If defendant’s evidence is so weak that a reasonable jury must find for plaintiff, then plaintiff
should be granted summary judgment.
- If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a
reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then defendant is entitled
to summary judgment, and plaintiff loses, then and there.

Please notice that in the last example "defendant" and "plaintiff" first mentioned with the determiner and then without any. All these sentences do not tell us a story of someone's lawsuit but explain us in general legal procedures. So "plaintiff" (without the determiner) does not substitute here for a name of a man who is the plaintiff in the case we are discussing now and we know this man. Do you understand what i am trying to say?

Hello, Timon; There is actually something else going in these sentences/phrases. The author is using a clipped style somewhat as in abbreviated personal notes, that an individual might take.

“and it is equally important that () plaintiff be able to prove” could also have an article at ().

“as it appears in () plaintiff’s complaint” also may have an article if one wishes.

“- If (a/the) defendant’s evidence is so weak that a reasonable jury must find for (the) plaintiff, then (the) plaintiff should be granted summary judgment.”

This last phrase “- If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a
reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then () defendant is entitled
to summary judgment, and () plaintiff loses, then and there” is showing that you can in fact use an article as you expect, before ‘defendant’ and 'plaintiff'. The lack of articles at () is more the personal style of the particular writer, not a particular rule of English.

Originally Posted by Seraph

This last phrase “- If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then () defendant is entitled to summary judgment, and () plaintiff loses, then and there” is showing that you can in fact use an article as you expect, before ‘defendant’ and 'plaintiff'. The lack of articles at () is more the personal style of the particular writer, not a particular rule of English.

Thank you. Having read your explanation I think about the following: lets say I am passing some English test and have written this sentence in the quote above. What will an exeminer do? Will he consider "() plaintiff" as a mistake?

Originally Posted by Timon

Thank you. Having read your explanation I think about the following: lets say I am passing some English test and have written this sentence in the quote above. What will an exeminer do? Will he consider "() plaintiff" as a mistake?

If the test is not explicitly concerned with legalese I would count that as a mistake. I would use the article if in doubt.