We recently told you that the Indiana Supreme Court prefers standard dictionaries to legal dictionaries when defining terms. A June 30, 2011 decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals in Enhanced Network Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hypersonic Technologies Corp., ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 02A03-1011-PL-609, demonstrated that it does not subscribe to the same philosophy
In this case, the Court was defining the terms “solicit” and “induce” for the purposes of a contractual non-solicitation clause. The Court noted that no Indiana case law had discussed the precise meaning of these terms, so it looked to a dictionary definition. But rather than relying on a standard dictionary, the Court relied solely on Black’s Law Dictionary.
We aren’t taking the time to determine whether a different dictionary could have led to a different result. But we do think it is worth suggesting that you cite legal dictionaries to the Court of Appeals, and standard dictionaries to the Supreme Court.
