Contra
Literal meaning: “Against; on the other hand”
What does the Latin term "Contra" mean in law?
Contra is used in legal writing to indicate a contrary authority or opposing position. When citing cases, a writer uses contra to flag a decision that directly opposes the proposition being advanced. It functions as a signal of negative authority in the Bluebook citation system, alerting the reader that the cited source reaches the opposite conclusion. The term also appears in the phrase contra proferentem, a rule of contract interpretation holding that ambiguous terms are construed against the party who drafted them. In pleadings and briefs, contra identifies the adversarial posture between parties or between conflicting lines of authority.
Source: General · Legal Latin
Legal Definition
Contra is used in legal writing to indicate a contrary authority or opposing position. When citing cases, a writer uses contra to flag a decision that directly opposes the proposition being advanced. It functions as a signal of negative authority in the Bluebook citation system, alerting the reader that the cited source reaches the opposite conclusion. The term also appears in the phrase contra proferentem, a rule of contract interpretation holding that ambiguous terms are construed against the party who drafted them. In pleadings and briefs, contra identifies the adversarial posture between parties or between conflicting lines of authority.
How It's Used
Legal writers use contra as a citation signal in briefs and law review articles to direct readers to authorities that contradict the stated proposition. It is also embedded in the interpretive doctrine of contra proferentem, which is routinely applied in insurance and adhesion contract disputes.
Example Sentences
Several circuits have held that the statute preempts state law claims; contra, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that such claims survive preemption.
The court applied the doctrine of contra proferentem and construed the ambiguous exclusion clause against the insurance company that had drafted the policy.
Plaintiff relies on Smith v. Jones for the proposition that strict liability applies, but contra, this court's own precedent requires a showing of negligence.