What is the difference between Common Law and Civil Law in the U.S.? Is there a difference between Common Law and Civil Law in the U.S., and if so, what is it?
Its always the simple questions that have complicated answers. In this case its because both Common Law and Civil Law have several different meanings. Civil Law v Criminal Law In this context, civil law means the ability of people to seek redress for wrongs from other people. These people may be individuals (natural persons) or legal persons (corporations, government etc.). When someone sues someone else they are using civil law. In contrast, criminal law is where a government prosecutes (not sues) a person (again natural or legal) who is alleged to have committed an offence. To illustrate the difference, if a person murders another person the government will use criminal law to prosecute the murder and the family of the victim will use civil law to pursue a wrongful death suit. Common Law v Civil Law In this context, common law and civil law refer to two of the major legal systems in use on Earth: By Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa) - Own work, using World map by Canuckguy and others UNESCO World Heritage map by NNW The data sources are:University of Ottawa: JuriGlobe – World Legal Systems Research Group Wikipedia: List of national legal systems European legal systems map by Ain92 and others (which seems to be based on this map by C.Löser and others) World legal systems map by Robinkissac, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40154967 Common Law is derived from the law of England and is used in areas colonized by the English - the UK, Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. Civil Law is derived from continental European law and ultimately from Roman law. The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent. In common law jurisdictions, nearly every case that presents a bona fide disagreement on the law is resolved in a written opinion. In contrast, civil law decisions typically do not include explanatory opinions. In common law systems, a single decided case is binding law to the same extent as statute or regulation, under the principle of stare decisis. In contrast, in civil law systems, individual decisions have only advisory, not binding effect. In civil law systems, case law only acquires weight when a long series of cases use consistent reasoning, called jurisprudence constante. Civil law lawyers consult case law to obtain their best prediction of how a court will rule, but comparatively, civil law judges are less bound to follow it. For that reason, statutes in civil law systems are more comprehensive, detailed, and continuously updated, covering all matters capable of being brought before a court. The United States and 49 of the states are Common Law jurisdictions, the exception is Louisiana which is a Civil Law jurisdiction (specifically the Napoleonic subset of Civil Law) as, unlike the rest of the country, it was initially a French possession. Common Law v Common Law In addition to the way the term is used above, &quot;common law&quot; can be used within a Common Law jurisdiction to distinguish that part of the law which arises from judicial precedent from that part which arises from legislative statute or administrative regulation. Further, within legal argument, the term may be used to distinguish &quot;common law&quot; (or just &quot;law&quot;) from equity. Before 1873, England had two parallel court systems: courts of &quot;law&quot; which could only award money damages and recognized only the legal owner of property, and courts of &quot;equity&quot; (courts of chancery) that could issue injunctive relief (that is, a court order to a party to do something, give something to someone, or stop doing something) and recognized trusts of property.
It depends highly on which jurisdiction you're referring to. This is one of the areas where it varies state to state. &quot;Practicing law&quot; is not generally defined in statute, but the Wikipedia definition defines it as (emphasis mine): giving legal advice to clients, drafting legal documents for clients, and representing clients in legal negotiations and court proceedings such as lawsuits, and is applied to the professional services of a lawyer or attorney at law, barrister, solicitor, or civil law notary. Wikipedia defines Legal advice as the giving of a professional or formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law in relation to a particular factual situation. and displays the following enforcement provision (emphasis mine): Criminal laws and enforcement of &quot;Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)&quot; statutes is the organized bar's preferred method. Thus, New Jersey has a law which makes it a “disorderly persons offense” to knowingly to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and a “crime in the fourth degree” to commit UPL if one (a) creates a false impression that one is a lawyer; (b) derives a benefit from UPL, or (c) causes an injury by UPL. See also IANAL, which has some information about usage on the Internet: The case law standard for determining what comments cross the line is generally &quot;the application of law to facts specific to an individual seeking legal advice&quot;.
Are there any legal terms which can make it clear that such questions are about the &quot;outside of reach&quot; rather than &quot;outside of claim of reach&quot; situations? Enforceability Laws that claim but cannot reach lack enforceability. Note that enforceability is case-specific and subjective. The US may or may not be able to reach out to those it deems to be criminals on the other side of the world; those may or may not care.
I can't do much better than the opening to Wikipedia's article on this: The contemporary legal systems of the world are generally based on one of four basic systems: civil law, common law, statutory law, religious law or combinations of these. However, the legal system of each country is shaped by its unique history and so incorporates individual variations. I believe that there are about 196 sovereign nations in the world so that gives 196 national systems. Many of these have sub-national jurisdictions (e.g. The USA with 50 states plus military law) so this total is at least several hundred and may run up to 1000. In addition there are systems of supra-national law such as maritime law, war crimes law and supra-national jurisdictions like the EU. So, short answer: lots. The correct terminology for a system of law is a jurisdiction. Note that many activities will be subject to multiple jurisdictions.
State supreme courts are not allowed to defy binding supreme court precedents and are quickly slapped down if they do. But not all U.S. Supreme Court rulings have that character. For example, even if a state has rules of civil procedure which are verbatim identical to the federal rules of civil procedure, it does not have to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of an identical rule. For example, many states have rules of civil procedure 8, 9 and 12 which are verbatim identical to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 9 and 12. But, when the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted FRCP 8, 9, and 12 in a new way in cases known as Iqbal and Twombly, not all state courts adopted the new interpretation and this was not a defiance of binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, because the U.S. Supreme Court's precedents only apply to federal laws and rules. Similarly, many states have state constitutional rights in a bill of rights which are worded with language identical to that of parallel rights under the U.S. Constitution as amended. But, state courts don't always interpret that language in the same way that the U.S. Supreme Court does. If the federal constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court is more protective of a right than the state constitution, then the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation sets a floor of protection (except in the small number of circumstances like the right to a civil jury trial, or the requirement that serious crimes be pre-approved by grand juries, where a federal right is not applicable to state and local governments). But, if the state constitution is interpreted by the State Supreme Court in a manner more protective a right than the U.S. Supreme Court, this is allowed and does not conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of identical language in the United States Constitution.
"Ignorance of the law" refers to a (non)-defense for committing a crime ("I didn't know it was against the law"). In this case, the government hasn't passed a law saying that "the term 'simple majority' shall always be defined as..." – there is no law saying that "simple majority means more than half of the total number of votes". Instead, terms are generally given their "common meaning". A reasonable case can be made that the common meaning of "majority" is "more that any other choice", and one can point to ample evidence showing that, such as this. However, one can also argue that extra weight should be given to to specialized definitions appearing in The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure or Robert's Rules of Order (or other such document), in support of a competing definition of "simple majority". Both sides will need to provide evidence that supports their interpretation of the phrase, based on external sources (parliamentary handbooks, dictionaries, and so on), as arguments for a particular interpretation of the term. The courts will be most impressed by evidence pertaining to the behavior of the parties, so that if everybody agrees that they understood "simple majority" to be "the choice with the most votes", then that is how the term will be interpreted.
No, Natural law is not a type or subset of Common Law Natural Law is derived from what some person thinks is a logical and obvious rule, or what some person thinks is God's Law. There are many versions and varieties of natural law, and there is no wide agreement on what it does or does not specify. Common law is derived from the judgements of the Royal Courts in England (later Great Britain, still later the UK) roughly during the period 1250-1850. (After that it continued to develop as case law, but major changes were usually statutory, although not always as a comment by Martin Bonner points out.) It started with a rough distillation of then widespread customary law, ultimately traceable to Germanic and Norman traditional law. Supposedly, common law had been in force &quot;since the memory of man runs not to the contrary&quot; and judges did not create it but merely &quot;discovered&quot; it. Common law was then expanded and altered over the centuries by the decisions of judges of the common-law courts in individual cases, primarily the court of the King's Bench, the court of the Exchequer, and the court of Common Pleas. It also included some rules derived from statutes, particularly early ones, such as those of King Henry II. Later statutes could and did alter the rules of common law. Technically such altered rules became &quot;statutory law&quot; not strictly part of the common law, but where they dealt with matters handled by the common-law courts, they were often considered to be part of the common law in an informal sense, as they were laws taught to the lawyers (barristers) who practiced in the common-law courts. Common law was distinguished from several other kinds of law: Local customary law: the law used in local courts, particularly Hundred courts and Shire courts, but also the courts of local lords. This law varied from place to place, and was largely derived from &quot;ancient local custom&quot; supplemented by Royal and noble charters. Church law: the law used in church courts, which had jurisdiction over wills and land owned by the church, laws on Sunday observance and several other things, as well as the discipline of priests and other clerics. Admiralty law the law of ships and seagoing matters. It covered salvage, disposition of captured enemy ships and cargo (prize law), maritime insurance, mutinies and crimes aboard ships, and other nautical matters. In the seventeenth century Lord Justice Coke fought to reduce its jurisdiction in favor of common-law courts. Justice Story, of the US Marshall Court (1800-1835), fought to reverse Coke's changes on this point in US law. Law Merchant: law specifically for cases between merchants. It dealt with specifically commercial issues, and was eventually merged into the common law. Piepowder law: Special law for the dealings of foot peddlers. (The name comes from a Norman French term meaning &quot;dusty feet&quot;.) It also was eventually merged into the common law. Prerogative law: law derived from the direct authority of the King, particularly as exercised by the Court of the Star Chamber. It was widely regarded as tyrannical and was largely abolished by the English Civil War and its aftermath. Feudal law: Law dealing with the holding and inheritance of land under feudal tenure (largely knight's service, but other kinds too) and with other aspects of feudal rights, privileges, and obligations. It slowly became largely obsolete as less and less land was so held. Equity: Law developed by the Lords Chancellor of England (later Great Britain), intended to modify injustice worked by inflexible parts of the Common Law, but eventually becoming rather stiff itself. It was merged into the common law at different times in the US and the UK, but generally during the 1800s. The modern remedy of injunction is derived from equity. Statute Law Law directly derived from acts of the legislature -- Acts of Parliament in England/Great Britain/the UK. Civil Law: Law largely in force in Europe, partly derived from Roman law or Roman legal concepts, mixed with various local customary laws, and later much influenced by the Napoleonic Code. Modern EU law is considered a part of Civil Law. Civil law varies between different countries, and is at least as large and complex a subject as common law. It is also a subject I know less about. International Law: Law derived from treaties and other intentional agreements, and the traditional customs of dealing between countries (mostly in Europe). None of the above are &quot;natural law&quot; although in some cases natural law concepts influenced legislators and judges. There is some conceptual similarity between natural law and early common law, in that both looked to a supposedly pre-existing but unwritten law But natural law generally attempted to apply over-arching, top-down logical or theological rules, while common law was built up from low-level, decisions on individual cases, and then derived rules from these individual decisions. A version of natural law concepts, derived from Enlightenment philosophers, particularly Locke, influenced the drafters of the Constitution. (See Gary Wills, Explaining America; See also the Wikipedia article on Natural Law, linked above). But that was quite different in style and content from recent versions of natural law, which are usually aimed at imposing theological rules and abolishing secular rights which would hinder this process. (See How acceptable (mainstream/marginal) is the discussion about replacing the human rights with the natural law and to delete human rights chapters? and the link in the question for examples.) Moreover, different authors who advocate natural law do not agree on what that law is or should be. The above is only a very brief summery. Anyone interested should read more widely. I recommend The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System by Charles Rembar (1980) e-book version by Open Road Media. It is a history of law written by a once-prominent practicing US lawyer, intended for those who are neither historians nor lawyers. In my view it is particularly well-written. There are, however, quite a few books available on the history of the common law.
One important formal difference is that self-represented litigants cannot claim the same costs if they prevail in a civil case. Costs are capped at 2/3 of what they would have received, had they been represented. (&quot;Disbursements&quot;, such as court fees, are not subject to the same limit.) Moreover, their deemed hourly rate is £19/hr, unless it's possible to demonstrate that they've incurred greater financial loss as a result of doing the work. This is much less than the billed rate for qualified counsel. A less practical privilege is wearing gowns and wigs. Self-represented litigants are not allowed to pretend that they are barristers by donning their finest horsehair, or going on about &quot;my learned friend&quot;. Solicitor-advocates are &quot;my friend&quot; but laypeople should not use this language at all. Outside of the courtroom, ordinary people can in principle do their own conveyancing (for example), but there are many practical obstacles. One is being fully exposed to the costs of mistakes. Mortgage lenders will often refuse to let random members of the public take care of the legal intricacies, and some solicitors on the other side will advise their clients not to bother. There are also a few technicalities which are easier for practicing solicitors, such as access to DX (a specialist private postal service) for shuttling reams of paper documents across the country. Case law (Domb v Isoz [1980] 1 All ER 942) lets solicitors effect an exchange of contracts by telephone, but this has not been recognised for other people, who continue to have to do it physically.