The American legal system has retained juries for civil trials, not only for personal injury cases, but also for all sorts of complex disputes, including antitrust and intellectual property cases. Having juries, however, has required the U.S. to develop special procedures to govern exactly what jurors are allowed to hear and what they are permitted to decide rather than judges deciding for themselves. For example, we have controls on what lawyers say and how they act in the courtroom, how witnesses may be handled, and so on. In the end, this reflects the doubts we have about just how sensibly juries will act after all. In addition, an elaborate "motion" practice now occurs before and during trial. These rules, are designed to dispose of cases, (or parts of cases) without having them decided by juries. In the U.S., we have both national law, state law and federal courts and state courts. Federal courts often decide cases based on state law, and within our states we often have court structures which themselves have overlapping jurisdictions. Here, all sorts of complex rules of civil procedure have been developed to govern the allocation of cases to the various courts. And so, a case can frequently be tried in one of two or more courtrooms. Because of the advantage to one side or the other of having the case heard in a specific way, the parties often seek to reveal aspects of these procedural rules to their advantage.
Monday, April 8, 2013
WHY IS CIVIL PROCEDURE IMPORTANT?
Why is procedure so important in America?
The American legal system has retained juries for civil trials, not only for personal injury cases, but also for all sorts of complex disputes, including antitrust and intellectual property cases. Having juries, however, has required the U.S. to develop special procedures to govern exactly what jurors are allowed to hear and what they are permitted to decide rather than judges deciding for themselves. For example, we have controls on what lawyers say and how they act in the courtroom, how witnesses may be handled, and so on. In the end, this reflects the doubts we have about just how sensibly juries will act after all. In addition, an elaborate "motion" practice now occurs before and during trial. These rules, are designed to dispose of cases, (or parts of cases) without having them decided by juries. In the U.S., we have both national law, state law and federal courts and state courts. Federal courts often decide cases based on state law, and within our states we often have court structures which themselves have overlapping jurisdictions. Here, all sorts of complex rules of civil procedure have been developed to govern the allocation of cases to the various courts. And so, a case can frequently be tried in one of two or more courtrooms. Because of the advantage to one side or the other of having the case heard in a specific way, the parties often seek to reveal aspects of these procedural rules to their advantage.
The American legal system has retained juries for civil trials, not only for personal injury cases, but also for all sorts of complex disputes, including antitrust and intellectual property cases. Having juries, however, has required the U.S. to develop special procedures to govern exactly what jurors are allowed to hear and what they are permitted to decide rather than judges deciding for themselves. For example, we have controls on what lawyers say and how they act in the courtroom, how witnesses may be handled, and so on. In the end, this reflects the doubts we have about just how sensibly juries will act after all. In addition, an elaborate "motion" practice now occurs before and during trial. These rules, are designed to dispose of cases, (or parts of cases) without having them decided by juries. In the U.S., we have both national law, state law and federal courts and state courts. Federal courts often decide cases based on state law, and within our states we often have court structures which themselves have overlapping jurisdictions. Here, all sorts of complex rules of civil procedure have been developed to govern the allocation of cases to the various courts. And so, a case can frequently be tried in one of two or more courtrooms. Because of the advantage to one side or the other of having the case heard in a specific way, the parties often seek to reveal aspects of these procedural rules to their advantage.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES
Some of the differences between the two are the fact that criminal procedures are prosecutions that are started by the state, while civil prosecutions are started by private induviduals.
For example, in a criminal case, you would often see:
People v.s Sanchez- people can describe the certain state, like Texas. People of Texas vs. Sanchez.
In civil cases, such as those seen on shows like Judge Judy or the People's Court, you would often see:
Smith vs Sanchez- two induviduals, who are called plaintiff or defendant, are involved. They are usually based on financial matters and sue for a given amount of money, damages, or the transfer of property. The video below states a little more on the topic...
For example, in a criminal case, you would often see:
People v.s Sanchez- people can describe the certain state, like Texas. People of Texas vs. Sanchez.
In civil cases, such as those seen on shows like Judge Judy or the People's Court, you would often see:
Smith vs Sanchez- two induviduals, who are called plaintiff or defendant, are involved. They are usually based on financial matters and sue for a given amount of money, damages, or the transfer of property. The video below states a little more on the topic...
WHAT IS CIVIL PROCEDURE?
Civil Procedure is the body of law that sets the rules and standards that all courts follow. It also governs how a lawsuit or case may be commenced. For example, it determines what kind of service of process-types of pleadings and statements, motions, and orders allowed in civil cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)