Common law rulings are typically rulings made centuries ago regarding certain kinds of wrongs or torts.
Originally the English court system was divided between the law courts and the ecclesiastic courts or moral courts. The so called moral courts decided issues of conscience or "equity" whereas the law courts decided matters along clear lines drawn by Parliament or the King.
The law courts were presided over by ministers of the King. The equity or moral courts were presided over by Bishops or other church-related decision makers.
The law courts had teeth. They could convict persons of crimes, enter judgments for money, and attend to ordinary disputes regarding commerce and property.
The equity or moral courts often had few teeth other than to enter a decree compelling a person to do something, or deliver something in their possession, or in rare cases to pay money. But there was no way to actually enforce these church decrees. These courts plied on the conscience of men and those men who defied the church's decrees were simply ex-communicated from the church. For a bad man, that means nothing.
With the Protestant revolution and the rise of the Anglican church, the King because the "defender of the faith" and the courts worked at his insistence. Suddenly, this great body of law and church-made law was adopted by ministers of the King called magistrates and chancellors. Magistrates handled the law-side and the chancellors handled the equity side.
Soon both sides of the court began borrowing ideas from each other. For instance, there were primitive laws that prohibited a man from not paying his debt for money owed. The law courts expanded those laws by interpreting them and imposing certain conditions or "elements" on plaintiffs before they could recover.
Torts began to develop on the law side as remedies for trespasses, battery, and the like. It was much better to have people sue for money than commit violence.
The equity side took the maxim that the chancellor will award that which in good conscience ought to be awarded, provided that there is no adequate remedy on the law side of the court, and the relief awarded did not conflict with the law side.
As time wore on, causes of action were defined in contract, tort, property, and commercial transactions. And where the remedy was not complete at law, the chancellors were willing to hear a prayer from the parties to resolve those disputes not necessarily covered on the law side.
Eventually both sides of the courts would find a haven in one single court system and one judge. The chancellors were eventually outmoded.
In the United States, in the 1930's, law and equity were merged into one set of rules of procedure and one cause of action called a civil action.
So judges have been "making" law so to speak for centuries. They sometimes still do.
2007-04-06 11:30:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by krollohare2 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the event of an election dispute, the Supreme Court will choose the president of the United States.
2007-04-06 11:18:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Me in basic terms me is relating a Washinton post article claiming that because of the fact 5 of her cases went earlier the incredible court docket and 3 have been overturned, it incredibly is like 3 into 5 is 60%. yet a judges reversal fee is predicated on the whole sort of cases vacated and over ruled, to that end by ability of the incredible court docket while in comparison with the whole sort of cases judged. In her case thats 4 (3 over ruled and one million vacated) out of four hundred in 17 years or one million%. usually seventy 5% of cases heard by ability of the incredible court docket are over rulings or vacated judgements because of the fact it takes 5 judges to rule to come to a decision and four judges to pay attention a case. The 2nd Circuit court docket Sonomayer sits on has a low reversal fee at one million%, different courts like the ninth and seventh circuit court docket have over 12%.
2016-11-07 10:09:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
in Brown v. Board of Education, the supreme court said that separate but equal schools for black and white children were unconstitutional. the ruling was made for the Topeka, Kansas school system but other school districts with "separate but equal" arrangements had to comply as well.
2007-04-06 12:47:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by njyogibear 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Abortion would be the most famous.
2007-04-06 11:15:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋