Also known as: before mentioned · beforementioned · aforementioned · aforesaid
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A referential phrase in legal documents indicating a person, thing, or matter previously identified or discussed within the same instrument.
Bethany Boyd sued a foreign vessel owner in federal district court after a collision in the contiguous zone. The complaint invoked jurisdiction over the before-mentioned cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction listed in the Constitution. The court accepted the filing because the facts fit one of those enumerated categories.
Bei Bai challenged a state tax that conflicted with an earlier federal treaty. Counsel cited the before-mentioned Senators and Representatives who must be bound by oath to support the Constitution. The state court dismissed the tax claim and enforced the federal obligation.
Bruce Baldwin sought to enjoin enforcement of a state waiting-period statute. The brief referred to the before-mentioned undue-burden standard from prior precedent. The district court applied that standard and granted preliminary relief.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View caseBrendan Burns filed a federal wage claim against the state in state court. The answer invoked the before-mentioned immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment context. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
In 1992, petitioners, a group of probation officers, filed suit against their employer, the State of Maine, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The officers alleged the State had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and sought compensation and liquidated damages. While the suit was pending, the Supreme Court decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida in 1996. Upon consideration of that decision, the District Court dismissed petitioners' action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners then filed the same action in state court. The state trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of sovereign immunity, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in 1998. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision conflicted with the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in Jacoby v. Arkansas Department of Education. In light of the importance of the question presented and the conflict between the courts, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1998. The United States intervened as a petitioner to defend the statute. Petitioners are a group of probation officers who alleged violations of federal overtime requirements by their state employer. The procedural path moved from federal district court through dismissal after Seminole Tribe, to refiling in Maine state court, dismissal there, affirmance by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and finally review by the United States Supreme Court.
View caseBrooke Bryant sought to register a handgun in the District of Columbia. The complaint cited the before-mentioned individual right to keep and bear arms. The court struck down the registration requirement as unconstitutional.
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home. The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseBrian Bailey challenged a state law restricting exports to a sanctioned country. Counsel pointed to the before-mentioned exclusive federal power over foreign relations. The court held the state statute preempted and unenforceable.
An indictment was returned on January 27, 1936. The first count charged that appellees conspired beginning May 29, 1934, to sell fifteen machine guns in the United States to Bolivia, a country then engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco. The sales allegedly violated the Joint Resolution of Congress approved May 28, 1934, and the presidential proclamation issued the same day. The Joint Resolution stated that if the President found the prohibition of arms sales might contribute to peace and if he consulted with other American Republics and secured their cooperation, he could proclaim the prohibition effective. It then became unlawful to sell arms to the countries in the Chaco conflict. President Roosevelt issued the proclamation on May 28, 1934. He declared that he had made the required findings and that the prohibition applied to Bolivia and Paraguay. On November 14, 1935, the President revoked the proclamation. The revocation stated that the prohibition was no longer necessary but expressly preserved all penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities already incurred. Appellees demurred to the indictment. They argued that the joint resolution effected an invalid delegation of legislative power, that the President had failed to find essential jurisdictional facts, and that the revocation ended any liability. The district court sustained the demurrers on the delegation ground but overruled them on the other two grounds. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court under the Criminal Appeals Act.
View caseThe phrase is archaic legalese that adds unnecessary formality without improving clarity. Contemporary style manuals recommend plain English alternatives such as the previously identified party or the matter just described.
Yes. Article III, Section 2 uses the phrase to refer back to the enumerated heads of jurisdiction listed earlier in the same section.
Supporting sources
It functions as an internal cross-reference, directing the reader to an earlier definition or description within the same document so that later provisions can incorporate that earlier language without repetition.
Yes. Both are traditional referential phrases that point to something already named or discussed. Neither adds substantive legal content beyond the reference itself.
…delivery; provided always that any institution of the above description may relieve itself from the operation of the provisions aforesaid by paying annually, in advance, to the Treasurer of the Western Shore, for the use of the State, the sum of $15,000. "And be it enacted that the President, cashier, each of the directors…