Legal Definitions - but cf.

But cf. is a legal citation signal used to introduce a source that presents a viewpoint or conclusion that is similar to the opposite of the statement just made by the author. The "cf." part stands for the Latin word "confer," meaning "compare."

When an author uses but cf., they are acknowledging that while their primary argument points in one direction, the cited source offers a perspective that leans towards a different, perhaps contrary, conclusion or approach, without directly refuting the author's statement. It signals a subtle disagreement or a contrasting idea that readers should consider, representing the weakest form of a negative signal in legal writing. Essentially, it tells the reader, "While I've just stated X, consider this source which suggests something that might lead you to think not-X, or at least a different approach to X."

• Example 1: Contract Interpretation

  An attorney argues in a brief, "The court should interpret this ambiguous contract clause based solely on the plain meaning of the words used, as is the standard approach for commercial agreements to ensure predictability."

  But cf. they might cite a case where a court considered extensive extrinsic evidence, such as emails exchanged during negotiations and industry custom, to determine the parties' true intent behind a seemingly plain clause, leading to an interpretation different from a strict plain-meaning approach.

  Explanation: The cited source doesn't directly forbid using plain meaning, but it highlights a situation where a court adopted a different, more expansive method of interpretation that could lead to an opposite outcome, thereby presenting a contrasting approach to contract analysis.

• Example 2: Property Rights and Public Access

  A legal scholar writes, "Private property owners generally have an absolute right to exclude others from their land, a cornerstone of property law."

  But cf. they might reference a state supreme court decision that recognized a "public trust doctrine" over certain private beachfront properties, allowing public access despite private ownership, especially for recreational purposes.

  Explanation: While the scholar asserts a strong right to exclude, the cited case presents a scenario where the opposite (public access) is legally mandated for specific types of private property, offering a significant counterpoint to the idea of absolute exclusion.

• Example 3: Sentencing Guidelines

  A prosecutor argues, "Mandatory minimum sentences are essential for deterring serious crimes and ensuring consistent punishment across similar offenses."

  But cf. they might cite a study or a judicial opinion that discusses how mandatory minimums can lead to disproportionately harsh sentences for non-violent offenders, reduce judicial discretion, and contribute to prison overcrowding, suggesting that a more flexible sentencing approach might be preferable.

  Explanation: The cited source doesn't deny the goal of deterrence, but it introduces negative consequences and arguments for a different, more flexible sentencing philosophy that stands in contrast to the rigid application of mandatory minimums, thereby presenting a view similar to the opposite of the prosecutor's assertion.