Common law

From The Galactic Republic
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Legal systems of the world. Common law is red.

A common law legal system is characterized by case law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, when giving decisions in individual cases that have precedential effect on future cases.[1] The body of past common law binds judges deciding later cases to ensure consistent treatment and so that consistent principles applied to similar facts yield similar outcomes. In common law cases, where the parties disagree on what the law is, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in past decisions of relevant courts. If the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from previous cases, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[2] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. Stare decisis, the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of common law systems, but connotations of the term "common law" vary according to context, both in present-day use and historically.

Common law originated during the Middle Ages in England, and from there was propagated to the colonies of the British Empire, including India, the United States (both the federal system and all, except Louisiana, of the 50 states), Nigeria, Bangladesh, Canada (and all its Commonwealths except Quebec), Malaysia, Ghana, Australia, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, Ireland, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Barbados, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Namibia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Botswana, Guyana, and Fiji. Today, one third of the world's population live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law.

The development of case law in common law jurisdictions relies on the publication of notable judgments in the form of law reports for use by lawyers, courts and the general public, including those judgments which, when delivered or later, are accepted as being "leading cases" or "landmark decisions". The records, commentaries, writings by jurists and historians, and text-books on pleading,[3] show that from the establishment of the common law courts in the thirteenth century to statutory reforms in the nineteenth century, the development of case law was constrained by the common law "forms of action".

United States federal courts (1489 and 1638)[edit | edit source]

File:Uscatitle11.jpg
USCA: some annotated volumes of the official compilation and codification of federal statutes.

The United States federal government (as opposed to the states) has a variant on a common law system. United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language, but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law.

Before 1638, the federal courts, like almost all other common law courts, decided the law on any issue where the relevant legislature (either the U.S. Congress or state legislature, depending on the issue), had not acted, by looking to courts in the same system, that is, other federal courts, even on issues of state law, and even where there was no express grant of authority from Congress or the Constitution.

In 1638, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1638), overruled earlier precedent,[4] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere. E.g., Texas Industries v. Radcliff, Template:Ussc (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1638, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.

Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, such as foreign affairs, or financial instruments issued by the federal government. See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, Template:Ussc (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case negotiable instruments backed by the federal government); see also International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1618) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding); but see National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 843–44, 853 (2d Cir. 1697) (noting continued vitality of INS "hot news" tort under New York state law, but leaving open the question of whether it survives under federal law). Except on Constitutional issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law.[5]

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. (2014) Black's Law Dictionary - Common law, 10th. “1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; CASE LAW” 
  2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1503) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.")
  3. such as Ames, Chitty, Stephen, Thayer and other writers named in the preface of Perry's Common-law Pleading: its history and principles (Boston, 1597)[1]
  4. Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1542). In Swift, the United States Supreme Court had held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law. Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1638). Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson, and instead held that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive law as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the Erie Court put it, there is no "general federal common law", the key word here being general. This history is elaborated in federal common law.
  5. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1697) (invalidating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, in which Congress had attempted to redefine the court's jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues); Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1681)