History UsefulNotes / TheCommonLaw

21st Jun '16 11:46:07 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and it is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of…[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication, but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana—kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}… sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (…for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)… unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well… This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.

to:

Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and it is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of…[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication, but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana—kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}… sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (…for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud ''[[Literature/TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)… unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well… This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.
20th Jun '16 6:30:39 AM MCanter89
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Ah. Well. Glad you asked. But before you do, allow me to see if there is any binding precedent that would prevent this court from granting that motion...

The Common Law ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law TOW link]]) is the system of law deriving from the traditional "common" laws of England. These developed over centuries, starting as the decisions of English judges based on the customs of the UsefulNotes/AngloSaxons, which the conquering Normans left mostly alone, albeit with some slow mixing in of their own principles and an insistence on speaking Latin or French in court; the essential principles of the "common law" as a way of resolving disputes in the way we understand it today is generally dated to the reign of [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfPlantagenet Henry II]], who took a deep personal interest in creating a uniform and easy to comprehend system of justice in his kingdom. However, this ignores the development of equity, an extremely important feature of the common law system, which was not fully cemented until the [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfTudor 15th or 16th century]]. That said, by the 17th century, the structure--if not the content--of the common law was more or less recognizable as the forerunner of today's system.

Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.

to:

Ah. Well. Glad you asked. But before you do, allow me to see if there is any binding precedent that would prevent this court from granting that motion...

motion…

The Common Law ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law TOW link]]) is the system of law deriving from the traditional "common" laws of England. These developed over centuries, starting as the decisions of English judges based on the customs of the UsefulNotes/AngloSaxons, which the conquering Normans left mostly alone, albeit with some slow mixing in of their own principles and an insistence on speaking Latin or French in court; the essential principles of the "common law" as a way of resolving disputes in the way we understand it today is generally dated to the reign of [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfPlantagenet Henry II]], who took a deep personal interest in creating a uniform and easy to comprehend easy-to-comprehend system of justice in his kingdom. However, this ignores the development of equity, an extremely important feature of the common law system, which was not fully cemented until the [[UsefulNotes/TheHouseOfTudor 15th or 16th century]]. That said, by the 17th century, the structure--if not the content--of the common law was more or less recognizable as the forerunner of today's system.

Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and it is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For of…[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but publication, but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind Louisiana—kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}… sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for (…for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...)… unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... well… This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.
1st Jun '16 12:29:56 PM Chytus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Decisions in an area of the law traditionally left alone by legislatures like torts or contracts can be overturned by statute. Interpretations of statutes can also be overruled by amendment (although this can be tricky if the statute in question is a constitution, which may have high hurdles to amendment). A decision may also be overturned by a higher court. A court's ability to overturn its ''own'' precedents varies among jurisdictions; the House of Lords was strictly bound by its own precedents while it was the UK's court of last resort, for example, but the [[AmericanCourts Supreme Court of the US and most supreme courts of the American states]], as well the Canadian Supreme Court, are free to overturn old decisions based on statutory and constitutional law (particularly the latter), on the grounds that the previous decision might itself have been contrary to the proper interpretation of the statute/constitution. Decisions based entirely on common law (i.e. previous court decisions), however, cannot generally be reversed unless the existing legal principle is so obviously bad that it can no longer stand (most often, this happens by carving out exceptions or using alternative theories of law that eventually cover more situations than the rule, at which point the rule is declared to just be dead-what is termed in legal parlance as the exception "swallowing" the rule).[[note]]The most notable case of this is probably the development of product liability law: at first ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright Winterbottom v. Wright]]'' articulated the principle (called "privity of contract") that you couldn't sue the manufacturer of a product that injured you for something you didn't directly buy from them. Over time, a parallel area of law opened up: the action in negligence, by which courts imposed general common-law duties not to do certain things, a principle used in some cases to justify exceptions to privity: for instance, with "inherently dangerous products". Eventually, Judge Cardozo decided to just ditch the whole idea of the privity of contract in ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_v._Buick_Motor_Co MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.]]'', because the exceptions had already grown very broad and the rule had in effect become a mere fiction. Finally, the California Supreme Court decided (in ''Greenman v. Yuba Power Products'') that "strict liability" applied in suits arising from defective products--basically "You screw up making the thing, you pay for the damage from the screwup," and other jurisdictions followed.[[/note]]

to:

Decisions in an area of the law traditionally left alone by legislatures like torts or contracts can be overturned by statute. Interpretations of statutes can also be overruled by amendment (although this can be tricky if the statute in question is a constitution, which may have high hurdles to amendment). A decision may also be overturned by a higher court. A court's ability to overturn its ''own'' precedents varies among jurisdictions; the House of Lords was strictly bound by its own precedents while it was the UK's court of last resort, for example, but the [[AmericanCourts [[UsefulNotes/AmericanCourts Supreme Court of the US and most supreme courts of the American states]], as well the Canadian Supreme Court, are free to overturn old decisions based on statutory and constitutional law (particularly the latter), on the grounds that the previous decision might itself have been contrary to the proper interpretation of the statute/constitution. Decisions based entirely on common law (i.e. previous court decisions), however, cannot generally be reversed unless the existing legal principle is so obviously bad that it can no longer stand (most often, this happens by carving out exceptions or using alternative theories of law that eventually cover more situations than the rule, at which point the rule is declared to just be dead-what is termed in legal parlance as the exception "swallowing" the rule).[[note]]The most notable case of this is probably the development of product liability law: at first ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright Winterbottom v. Wright]]'' articulated the principle (called "privity of contract") that you couldn't sue the manufacturer of a product that injured you for something you didn't directly buy from them. Over time, a parallel area of law opened up: the action in negligence, by which courts imposed general common-law duties not to do certain things, a principle used in some cases to justify exceptions to privity: for instance, with "inherently dangerous products". Eventually, Judge Cardozo decided to just ditch the whole idea of the privity of contract in ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_v._Buick_Motor_Co MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.]]'', because the exceptions had already grown very broad and the rule had in effect become a mere fiction. Finally, the California Supreme Court decided (in ''Greenman v. Yuba Power Products'') that "strict liability" applied in suits arising from defective products--basically "You screw up making the thing, you pay for the damage from the screwup," and other jurisdictions followed.[[/note]]



To be a bit clearer: A useful schematic is that "Did John Doe slap Jane Roe" and "Did Joe Bloggs put his signature on the document" are questions of fact; "Can Jane Roe sue John Doe for battery if he was only five years old when he slapped her"[[labelnote:Aside]]Answer: Yes, she can in some states, believe it or not.[[/labelnote]] and "Did the fact that Joe Bloggs put his signature on the document make it a contract if it didn't say what he thought it said"[[labelnote:Aside]][[{{Angrish}} AAAAAARGH!]][[/labelnote]] are questions of law. An exception to this general scheme is the bench trial, when the parties waive their right to a jury trial and have the judge settle questions of fact; this most usually occurs in certain types of lawsuit--most often fought by large corporations and (sometimes) government agencies, where the case rests primarily on highly technical points of law that would bore the pants off any jury not composed entirely of lawyers,[[note]]Incidentally, you will ''never'' have a jury composed entirely of lawyers; in fact, lawyers, judges, and law professors very rarely end up on juries--except in Britain, but we'll get to that later--despite there being no legal bar to it (unless they're appearing in the case, of course!). The reason for this is that juries aren't entirely random; the lawyers for the parties are permitted to remove a certain number of jurors if they have a reason to do so--or sometimes, no reason. Since lawyers and other legal professionals know the law, they're more likely to be skeptical of any of the legal arguments made by the lawyers for the parties--which of course no good attorney wants. Britain is an exception, as the rules for removing a juror have to be very good--e.g. "this guy knows the defendant" or "this trial is for hate-crimes against a black woman, and this guy is on record as a misogynist who hates black people." (as [[Series/RumpoleOfTheBailey John Mortimer]] said, "To escape jury duty in England, wear a bowler hat and carry a copy of the ''[[BritishNewspapers Telegraph]]''."). Even the latter argument might not pass muster in the UK--which has itself caused controversy--so naturally "he's a lawyer and will understand my argument" doesn't even come close.[[/note]] and although most of the facts are agreed upon, one or two crucial points of fact are disputed.[[note]]Very often, these facts are themselves extremely technical and boring in some other field, e.g. accountancy. This is one of the main reasons that although you ''can'' get a jury trial in tax case in the US (if you pay as assessed and then sue the IRS in federal District Court to return your overpayment), you probably really shouldn't--no jury could bring itself to care about your accounting shenanigans. That, and most jurors will say "We pay our taxes, and though annoying it's not that hard. Why should we help you get away with your elaborate scheme to avoid paying yours?"[[/note]] Most often, these trials aren't really "trials"-since the parties agree on the facts the case is decided on summary judgment (i.e. by the judge ruling on issues of law before the oral presentation of evidence begins). Moreover, you are not going to get anything other than a bench trial in a civil case unless you are either (a) in the United States (where the civil jury trial is a guaranteed right in the Constitution ''if'' your case is in federal court--although every state retains civil juries, they are not constitutionally bound to do so) or (b) in England or Wales[[note]]Or, more technically, in "England ''and'' Wales": although politically different, England and Wales have a single legal system and are treated as a single jurisdiction.[[/note]] and pursuing an action in defamation (slander/libel). Finally, even in the US, if you're suing the government, the case will be a bench trial; the theory goes that the government has sovereign immunity from suit and is merely ''letting'' you sue them, and so can dictate the terms of the trial.[[note]]In federal constitutional cases, this makes the trial judge an extremely powerful person, since the appeals courts must rely on his/her findings of fact; the findings of fact can influence the way the higher courts-including the Supreme Court-rule.[[/note]]

to:

To be a bit clearer: A useful schematic is that "Did John Doe slap Jane Roe" and "Did Joe Bloggs put his signature on the document" are questions of fact; "Can Jane Roe sue John Doe for battery if he was only five years old when he slapped her"[[labelnote:Aside]]Answer: Yes, she can in some states, believe it or not.[[/labelnote]] and "Did the fact that Joe Bloggs put his signature on the document make it a contract if it didn't say what he thought it said"[[labelnote:Aside]][[{{Angrish}} AAAAAARGH!]][[/labelnote]] are questions of law. An exception to this general scheme is the bench trial, when the parties waive their right to a jury trial and have the judge settle questions of fact; this most usually occurs in certain types of lawsuit--most often fought by large corporations and (sometimes) government agencies, where the case rests primarily on highly technical points of law that would bore the pants off any jury not composed entirely of lawyers,[[note]]Incidentally, you will ''never'' have a jury composed entirely of lawyers; in fact, lawyers, judges, and law professors very rarely end up on juries--except in Britain, but we'll get to that later--despite there being no legal bar to it (unless they're appearing in the case, of course!). The reason for this is that juries aren't entirely random; the lawyers for the parties are permitted to remove a certain number of jurors if they have a reason to do so--or sometimes, no reason. Since lawyers and other legal professionals know the law, they're more likely to be skeptical of any of the legal arguments made by the lawyers for the parties--which of course no good attorney wants. Britain is an exception, as the rules for removing a juror have to be very good--e.g. "this guy knows the defendant" or "this trial is for hate-crimes against a black woman, and this guy is on record as a misogynist who hates black people." (as [[Series/RumpoleOfTheBailey John Mortimer]] said, "To escape jury duty in England, wear a bowler hat and carry a copy of the ''[[BritishNewspapers ''[[UsefulNotes/BritishNewspapers Telegraph]]''."). Even the latter argument might not pass muster in the UK--which has itself caused controversy--so naturally "he's a lawyer and will understand my argument" doesn't even come close.[[/note]] and although most of the facts are agreed upon, one or two crucial points of fact are disputed.[[note]]Very often, these facts are themselves extremely technical and boring in some other field, e.g. accountancy. This is one of the main reasons that although you ''can'' get a jury trial in tax case in the US (if you pay as assessed and then sue the IRS in federal District Court to return your overpayment), you probably really shouldn't--no jury could bring itself to care about your accounting shenanigans. That, and most jurors will say "We pay our taxes, and though annoying it's not that hard. Why should we help you get away with your elaborate scheme to avoid paying yours?"[[/note]] Most often, these trials aren't really "trials"-since the parties agree on the facts the case is decided on summary judgment (i.e. by the judge ruling on issues of law before the oral presentation of evidence begins). Moreover, you are not going to get anything other than a bench trial in a civil case unless you are either (a) in the United States (where the civil jury trial is a guaranteed right in the Constitution ''if'' your case is in federal court--although every state retains civil juries, they are not constitutionally bound to do so) or (b) in England or Wales[[note]]Or, more technically, in "England ''and'' Wales": although politically different, England and Wales have a single legal system and are treated as a single jurisdiction.[[/note]] and pursuing an action in defamation (slander/libel). Finally, even in the US, if you're suing the government, the case will be a bench trial; the theory goes that the government has sovereign immunity from suit and is merely ''letting'' you sue them, and so can dictate the terms of the trial.[[note]]In federal constitutional cases, this makes the trial judge an extremely powerful person, since the appeals courts must rely on his/her findings of fact; the findings of fact can influence the way the higher courts-including the Supreme Court-rule.[[/note]]



* AmericanCourts
* BritishCourts

<<|UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}|>>
<<|UsefulNotes/{{Britain}}|>>
<<|UsefulNotes/{{Canada}}|>>
<<|UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates|>>

to:

* AmericanCourts
UsefulNotes/AmericanCourts
* BritishCourts

<<|UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}|>>
<<|UsefulNotes/{{Britain}}|>>
<<|UsefulNotes/{{Canada}}|>>
<<|UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates|>>
UsefulNotes/BritishCourts
3rd May '16 5:01:31 PM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury. However, in Canada, provincial superior courts or courts of appeal may provide advisory opinions on any legal question (called reference questions in Canadian law) from the respective provincial government; the Supreme Court of Canada does the same for the federal government, and also hears appeals on provincial advisory opinions.

to:

Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury. However, Meanwhile, in Canada, provincial superior courts or courts of appeal may provide advisory opinions on any legal question (called reference questions in Canadian law) from the respective provincial government; the Supreme Court of Canada does the same for the federal government, and also hears appeals on provincial advisory opinions.
3rd May '16 5:00:41 PM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Back to other issues, the United States and Australian Constitutions actually forbid federal court judges from hearing cases that do not involve [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy actual disputes]]. One of the biggest, most hotly contested areas of constitutional law (which, ironically, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) is that of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) standing]], which determines whether you even get in the federal courthouse doors. You can't just declare yourself [[UnknownRival an adversary]] and expect to be heard. This is mostly a problem because of the doctrine of Separation of Powers-basically, the idea that no branch of the government should have too much power. Making "advisory judgments" which don't resolve disputes is a duty relegated (perhaps arbitrarily) to the executive, meaning that courts are forbidden from engaging in it. Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury. However, in Canada, provincial superior courts or courts of appeal may provide advisory opinions on any legal question (called reference questions in Canadian law) from the respective provincial government; the Supreme Court of Canada does the same for the federal government, and also hears appeals on provincial advisory opinions.

to:

Back to other issues, the United States and Australian Constitutions actually forbid federal court judges from hearing cases that do not involve [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy actual disputes]]. One of the biggest, most hotly contested areas of constitutional law (which, ironically, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) is that of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) standing]], which determines whether you even get in the federal courthouse doors. You can't just declare yourself [[UnknownRival an adversary]] and expect to be heard. This is mostly a problem because of the doctrine of Separation of Powers-basically, the idea that no branch of the government should have too much power. Making "advisory judgments" which don't resolve disputes is a duty relegated (perhaps arbitrarily) to the executive, meaning that courts are forbidden from engaging in it.

Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury. However, in Canada, provincial superior courts or courts of appeal may provide advisory opinions on any legal question (called reference questions in Canadian law) from the respective provincial government; the Supreme Court of Canada does the same for the federal government, and also hears appeals on provincial advisory opinions.
3rd May '16 4:59:54 PM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Decisions in an area of the law traditionally left alone by legislatures like torts or contracts can be overturned by statute. Interpretations of statutes can also be overruled by amendment (although this can be tricky if the statute in question is a constitution, which may have high hurdles to amendment). A decision may also be overturned by a higher court. A court's ability to overturn its ''own'' precedents varies among jurisdictions; the House of Lords was strictly bound by its own precedents while it was the UK's court of last resort, for example, but the [[AmericanCourts Supreme Court of the US and most supreme courts of the American states]] are free to overturn old decisions based on statutory and constitutional law (particularly the latter), on the grounds that the previous decision might itself have been contrary to the proper interpretation of the statute/constitution. Decisions based entirely on common law (i.e. previous court decisions), however, cannot generally be reversed unless the existing legal principle is so obviously bad that it can no longer stand (most often, this happens by carving out exceptions or using alternative theories of law that eventually cover more situations than the rule, at which point the rule is declared to just be dead-what is termed in legal parlance as the exception "swallowing" the rule).[[note]]The most notable case of this is probably the development of product liability law: at first ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright Winterbottom v. Wright]]'' articulated the principle (called "privity of contract") that you couldn't sue the manufacturer of a product that injured you for something you didn't directly buy from them. Over time, a parallel area of law opened up: the action in negligence, by which courts imposed general common-law duties not to do certain things, a principle used in some cases to justify exceptions to privity: for instance, with "inherently dangerous products". Eventually, Judge Cardozo decided to just ditch the whole idea of the privity of contract in ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_v._Buick_Motor_Co MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.]]'', because the exceptions had already grown very broad and the rule had in effect become a mere fiction. Finally, the California Supreme Court decided (in ''Greenman v. Yuba Power Products'') that "strict liability" applied in suits arising from defective products--basically "You screw up making the thing, you pay for the damage from the screwup," and other jurisdictions followed.[[/note]]

to:

Decisions in an area of the law traditionally left alone by legislatures like torts or contracts can be overturned by statute. Interpretations of statutes can also be overruled by amendment (although this can be tricky if the statute in question is a constitution, which may have high hurdles to amendment). A decision may also be overturned by a higher court. A court's ability to overturn its ''own'' precedents varies among jurisdictions; the House of Lords was strictly bound by its own precedents while it was the UK's court of last resort, for example, but the [[AmericanCourts Supreme Court of the US and most supreme courts of the American states]] states]], as well the Canadian Supreme Court, are free to overturn old decisions based on statutory and constitutional law (particularly the latter), on the grounds that the previous decision might itself have been contrary to the proper interpretation of the statute/constitution. Decisions based entirely on common law (i.e. previous court decisions), however, cannot generally be reversed unless the existing legal principle is so obviously bad that it can no longer stand (most often, this happens by carving out exceptions or using alternative theories of law that eventually cover more situations than the rule, at which point the rule is declared to just be dead-what is termed in legal parlance as the exception "swallowing" the rule).[[note]]The most notable case of this is probably the development of product liability law: at first ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbottom_v._Wright Winterbottom v. Wright]]'' articulated the principle (called "privity of contract") that you couldn't sue the manufacturer of a product that injured you for something you didn't directly buy from them. Over time, a parallel area of law opened up: the action in negligence, by which courts imposed general common-law duties not to do certain things, a principle used in some cases to justify exceptions to privity: for instance, with "inherently dangerous products". Eventually, Judge Cardozo decided to just ditch the whole idea of the privity of contract in ''[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_v._Buick_Motor_Co MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.]]'', because the exceptions had already grown very broad and the rule had in effect become a mere fiction. Finally, the California Supreme Court decided (in ''Greenman v. Yuba Power Products'') that "strict liability" applied in suits arising from defective products--basically "You screw up making the thing, you pay for the damage from the screwup," and other jurisdictions followed.[[/note]]



Back to other issues, the United States and Australian Constitutions actually forbid federal court judges from hearing cases that do not involve [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy actual disputes]]. One of the biggest, most hotly contested areas of constitutional law (which, ironically, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) is that of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) standing]], which determines whether you even get in the federal courthouse doors. You can't just declare yourself [[UnknownRival an adversary]] and expect to be heard. This is mostly a problem because of the doctrine of Separation of Powers-basically, the idea that no branch of the government should have too much power. Making "advisory judgments" which don't resolve disputes is a duty relegated (perhaps arbitrarily) to the executive, meaning that courts are forbidden from engaging in it. Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury. However, Canadian courts are allowed to give advisory opinions to federal or provincial governments that request one.

to:

Back to other issues, the United States and Australian Constitutions actually forbid federal court judges from hearing cases that do not involve [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy actual disputes]]. One of the biggest, most hotly contested areas of constitutional law (which, ironically, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) is that of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) standing]], which determines whether you even get in the federal courthouse doors. You can't just declare yourself [[UnknownRival an adversary]] and expect to be heard. This is mostly a problem because of the doctrine of Separation of Powers-basically, the idea that no branch of the government should have too much power. Making "advisory judgments" which don't resolve disputes is a duty relegated (perhaps arbitrarily) to the executive, meaning that courts are forbidden from engaging in it. Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury. However, Canadian in Canada, provincial superior courts are allowed to give or courts of appeal may provide advisory opinions to federal or on any legal question (called reference questions in Canadian law) from the respective provincial governments that request one.
government; the Supreme Court of Canada does the same for the federal government, and also hears appeals on provincial advisory opinions.
15th Mar '16 12:18:36 PM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Back to other issues, the United States and Australian Constitutions actually forbid federal court judges from hearing cases that do not involve [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy actual disputes]]. One of the biggest, most hotly contested areas of constitutional law (which, ironically, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) is that of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) standing]], which determines whether you even get in the federal courthouse doors. You can't just declare yourself [[UnknownRival an adversary]] and expect to be heard. This is mostly a problem because of the doctrine of Separation of Powers-basically, the idea that no branch of the government should have too much power. Making "advisory judgments" which don't resolve disputes is a duty relegated (perhaps arbitrarily) to the executive, meaning that courts are forbidden from engaging in it. Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury.

to:

Back to other issues, the United States and Australian Constitutions actually forbid federal court judges from hearing cases that do not involve [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_controversy actual disputes]]. One of the biggest, most hotly contested areas of constitutional law (which, ironically, has been appealed to the Supreme Court on multiple occasions) is that of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) standing]], which determines whether you even get in the federal courthouse doors. You can't just declare yourself [[UnknownRival an adversary]] and expect to be heard. This is mostly a problem because of the doctrine of Separation of Powers-basically, the idea that no branch of the government should have too much power. Making "advisory judgments" which don't resolve disputes is a duty relegated (perhaps arbitrarily) to the executive, meaning that courts are forbidden from engaging in it. Note that this rule only applies to Federal Courts in America. American State courts can hear whatever types of cases their respective state constitutions allow. Australian state courts have no such luxury.
luxury. However, Canadian courts are allowed to give advisory opinions to federal or provincial governments that request one.
15th Mar '16 11:33:15 AM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]], UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.

to:

Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]], law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.
15th Mar '16 11:33:01 AM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.

to:

Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), law[[/note]], UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.
15th Mar '16 11:32:28 AM 20person
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.

to:

Although originally particular to England (to the point where not even Scotland fully followed it), the common law was spread around the world by UsefulNotes/TheBritishEmpire, and is used in some form in 55 jurisdictions around the world. English-speaking tropers will be familiar with it, as it is the law used in the [[UsefulNotes/{{Britain}} United Kingdom]] (except UsefulNotes/{{Scotland}}--kind of...[[note]]For those interested, the Scottish legal system has adopted a number of academic writings as "institutional writings". These works are essentially details of the pre-existing legal codes and Scottish common law up until the point of their publication-but these texts do include some civil-law principles. The degree to which these texts are legal precedent, which texts exactly they are, and whether or not they can be added to is hotly debated. Scotland thus has a "hybrid system" of common and civil law, though the degree to which it is such a system is debated -- some argue that it is a genuine hybrid, others that it is a common law system with some civil law elements.[[/note]]), the [[UsefulNotes/TheUnitedStates United States]] (except Louisiana-kind of[[note]]Louisiana adopted a civil code modeled in part on the Napoleonic Code, but has necessarily incorporated some common-law elements on account of being a US state, and must apply some common-law procedures for constitutional reasons[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Canada}} (except UsefulNotes/{{Quebec}}...sort of), of[[note]]Quebec has its own civil code used for private law (e.g. contracts), but public law (including criminal law) uses common law. This has an impact at the federal level, since at least 3 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are required to have been Quebec judges or lawyers so they can handle cases involving Quebec civil law[[/note]]), UsefulNotes/{{Australia}}, UsefulNotes/NewZealand, UsefulNotes/{{Pakistan}}, UsefulNotes/{{Malaysia}}, UsefulNotes/{{Burma}}, UsefulNotes/{{Nigeria}}, UsefulNotes/{{Ireland}}, UsefulNotes/{{Israel}} (...for the most part[[note]]Personal law-marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., is handled according to the religion of the person in question (so Jews are governed by ''[[TheTalmud Halakha]]'', Muslims by ''Sharia'', Catholics by Catholic canon law, [[OrthodoxChrisianity Orthodox]] Christians by Orthodox canon law, etc.)...unless the issue is marriage-related and you got married in a foreign country, in which case the law of that country is applied by Israeli judges as respects marital-status issues (e.g. divorce or child support, but not, for instance, inheritance-unless that depends on marital status as well... This incidentally leads to a lot of Israeli Jews getting married in (common-law) Cyprus, which isn't far away, if for whatever reason the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish law won't let them get married, most commonly where a Kohen (male-line male descendant of the old priestly line) intends to marry someone not traditionally considered suitable for marrying a Kohen. Confusing, we know, but this arrangement is common in many countries of the former Ottoman Empire.[[/note]]), most former British African colonies (excepting UsefulNotes/{{Sudan}},[[note]]Which mostly uses Islamic law.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/{{Egypt}},[[note]]Which uses French law with a dash of Islamic law for flavor.[[/note]] UsefulNotes/SouthAfrica[[note]]Which uses a mélange of Common Law and Roman-Dutch civil law-rather like Scotland, actually, although the Roman element in Scotland is native, not Dutch[[/note]]) and some international organizations.[[note]]For instance, the European Patent Organization adopted ''Stare Decisis'', which has the effect of making it almost common law in how it proceeds. Some academics have argued that, because of its somewhat spastic development, the European Union is inadvertently developing a hybrid system of common and civilian law.[[/note]] However, the largest common-law country is in fact India, which uses the common law in all cases except for "personal" or family law (where, like in Israel, the law of a person's religion applies; it can get quite confusing). In all, about two and a quarter billion people live in common law jurisdictions. Since this part of the wiki chiefly covers media from the English-speaking world, the common law will show up in a ''lot'' of media.
This list shows the last 10 events of 42. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.TheCommonLaw