Which of the following exists because of the old system of having seperate Equity Courts:?

Question

a) A lawsuit has to be started with a "Complaint"

b) only a judge must decide cases where the Plaintiff wants an equitable remedy such as an injunction

c) juries can award punitive damages in some cases

d) a Court can get personal jurisdiction of someone in another state

Answer 1

It is B. Even today equitable remedies such as an injuction hearing are generally heard by a judge not jury.

Answer 2

Actually, while B is closest, it is not necessarily correct.

There is (in most states, and in the federal system) no guaranteed right to a jury trial when seeking equitable remedies (including injunctions).

However, just because there is no right to a jury trial does not mean that "only a judge must decide". There are states have laws that prohibit a jury trial for purely equitable suits. However, there are also states that allow the decision to be made by the court, and those which allow a jury trial, even for purely equitable remedies, in certain situations.

However, answer 'C' is also a result of the old split between courts of law and courts of equity. In courts of equity, the punishment took the form of injunctive relief. Since that remedy was not available to courts of law, punitive damages were the only remedy available when the court wanted to punish someone. So, 'C' is also a correct answer to the question.

Answer 'A' is also technically correct, since a Complaint was used at law, while a Petition for Writ was used in equity. Since the merger (in the US and many other common law countries) of these two court systems, the pleading process has has also been merged. Not all states require the formal "Complaint" title to be used, though all (TTBOMK) require something equivalent to the common law complaint.

Finally, 'D' is also a correct answer, though not for the same reasons. Courts of equity always operated "in personam" meaning over the person of the defendant. Thus, if the court of equity could not get personal jurisdiction, it could not enforce any judgment. Courts of law, on the other hand, could impose judgments "in rem" against property. And as long as the court's law enforcement folk could reach the property, the judgment could be enforced.

In the US, it was actually the Full Faith and Credit clause that allowed for the adoption of Long-Arm statutes allowing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state residents, because a judgment at law could be enforced by reciprocity. However, it is because of the old system of having separate equity courts that the Full Faith and Credit clause became relevant as a national unifying factor.

So, the proper answer to your question is 'E' all of the above.

Answer 3

The answer is b. Explanation from entry on chancery from Wikipedia:
The High Court of Chancery was the court that developed from the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction. Unlike the common law courts, which were rigidly based on precedent, the Lord Chancellor had jurisdiction to determine cases, on behalf of the King, according to equity or fairness rather than according to the strict letter of the law. Gradually the rules of equity also became codified, but they preserve important innovations, such as mandatory orders and injunctions, investment trusts, etc. See equity.

The High Court of Chancery was merged with the common law courts in 1873, and common law judges given the power to administer equity. In other common law jurisdictions most states either (1) abolished chancery courts and merged the powers of the courts of equity with the common law courts, thus making it possible for one to seek equitable relief at the same time as legal relief or (2) made the equitable jurisdiction the responsibility of a separate chancery division of the court of general jurisdiction. However, four American states (Arkansas, Delaware, Mississippi, and Tennessee), chose to retain completely separate Courts of Chancery. Judges who sit on such courts are called Chancellors.

One important distinction between these courts (at least in the United States, where juries still commonly hear civil cases) is that generally a jury trial is not possible in equitable actions as only a judge can dispense equity; a jury, while it can answer questions of fact, has no power to answer questions that involve interpretation of the law. Another important distinction is that the law of equity is a set of principles that are based upon the discretion of the judge interpreting them.

Answer 4

all the above