Is there one body of common law? I'm a bit confused by the usage of the phrase "common law" on this site. The Wikipedia article initially describes it as an abstract concept. The first paragraph reads: Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch. Later on, the phrase also seems to refer to a specific body of English law established by court precedent: Common law originated during the Middle Ages in England,[7] and from there was propagated to the colonies of the British Empire [..] This is more consistent with what I'm seeing on this site where specific laws are being cited as part of common law. So my understanding is that the phrase "common law" can refer to either the concept of laws established by court precedent or it can refer to a specific body of laws that have been established that way. What confuses me now is the relationship between common law in different countries. I usually see the phrase being used here simply as "common law" without qualification such as "U.K. common law" or "Virginia common law". Should I just be inferring that from context? Is there a single body of "common law"? Are there distinct bodies of "U.K. common law" and "U.S. common law" for example? If so, how are they related? Do judges in common law countries cite court decisions in other common law countries?
So my understanding is that the phrase "common law" can refer to either the concept of laws established by court precedent or it can refer to a specific body of laws that have been established that way. Yes. Should I just be inferring that from context? Yes. Is there a single body of "common law"? No. Are there distinct bodies of "U.K. common law" and "U.S. common law" for example? Yes, furthermore there is different common law in England/Wales, Northern Ireland &amp; Scotland and each state of the US. Further, Scotland and Louisiana are not straightforward common law jurisdictions but rather a blend of common and civil law. If so, how are they related? They are related in that they all: have a common source, middle English common law evolve in the same way - judges interpreting the current common law and the statutes of the legislature follow an appeals system through higher levels of courts. They do not all go in the same direction though. Do judges in common law countries cite court decisions in other common law countries? Sometimes; it depends on the "distance" of the other jurisdiction. A judge in New South Wales is quite likely to consider how judges in Queensland and Victoria have considered similar laws, less likely to look at the UK and Canada and extremely unlikely to look at the USA. This has a lot to do with how far back it is since the "last common ancestor" of the law; the longer the corpus of law has been separated the more likely that the principles have diverged, partly this is cultural drift but mostly this is differences in statutes that actively modify the common law. Usually, jurisdictions within the same country are quite close to each other; partly due to common culture but often because of a genuine effort to "harmonise" laws across borders. There are occasions, however, where legislatures "steal" laws from other jurisdictions, in which case they often look to each other for early development of common law on those laws. For example, the Alberta (Canada) Builder's Lien Act 2000 and the NSW (Australia) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 both address the same "wrong" and both had a common and parallel genesis pre-enactment; early cases in each jurisdiction were watched by the other.
I am not sure what the claim in the textbook means, and have been unable to find any other reference to support or explain it. Headnotes are always “presumptively correct” in the sense that they are professionally authored, so you can generally presume them to be correct, unless they conflict with the full text of the decision. But I’m not aware of any statute or case law that creates a formal presumption in relation to headnotes. Perhaps you could write to the author and ask if that’s what she means. What is unique about England and Wales, as the origin of the common law and the associated tradition of law reporting, is the preeminence of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. The ICLR was established in 1865 and publishes all official law reports in England and Wales. Arguably unlike the official or authorised reports of other common law jurisdictions, the ICLR’s reports are considered to be more authoritative even than the judgment published by the court itself. The ICLR’s website explains: However important the case, the transcript of a judgment does not have the same value, as a record of the decision contained in it, as a full text law report. Where, therefore, a law report is available, particularly where the case has been reported in one of the official series, The Law Reports, published by ICLR, it must be cited and referred to in that version in preference for any other: see Practice Direction (Citation of Authorities) [2012] 1 WLR 780 … the combination of a summary report and a transcript does not enjoy the same status as a full text law report where one is available, for reasons which will become clear once one appreciates the amount of careful editorial work that goes into preparing the full report. In other jurisdictions, the official law reports are treated with less reverence, although it is still normal for courts to require them to be cited in preference to primary sources such as slip opinions. Nonetheless, further down the page the ICLR makes clear that the full text of the judgment takes primacy over the headnote, just as in other jurisdictions: Although the headnote adds value to the report of a judgment, it is the judgment itself which sets the precedent and binds subsequent decision-makers. Nevertheless, a good headnote is a work of meticulous legal draftsmanship and can withstand the closest of textual scrutiny. Accuracy is all. Make the proposition too general, and the principle appears either so watered down as to be meaningless or, more dangerously, misleadingly wide in its application. Draw it too narrowly, and it fails to express the principle on which the court based its decision. At its best, a headnote is a precious distillation – the single malt of legal learning.
Are the steps of the process of judicial review spelled out anywhere? Judicial review isn't a separate kind of legal proceeding. It is something that happens in the course of making legal rulings in an ordinary lawsuit, or in a criminal case, commenced in a court where there is trial court jurisdiction over the kind of case presented. Usually, the trial court is a U.S. District Court in the federal system, and the trial court of general jurisdiction in the state system. But, in principle, any judge of any trial court, even traffic court or small claims court has the authority and the obligation to rule on the constitutionality of any statutes challenged in a case before that judge. Also, some appellate courts, while primarily having appellate jurisdiction, have a small class of cases where they act as trial courts. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has original trial court jurisdiction over lawsuits of one or more U.S. states against one or more other U.S. states and handles a few such cases each year in a typical year. Similarly, many state supreme courts have original trial court jurisdiction over ethical violation cases brought against attorneys in the state. The initial ruling on the constitutionality of a statute almost always takes place in the trial court, rather than in an appellate court, although appellate courts review the trial court's ruling on constitutionality on appeal, if there is an appeal. The only times an appellate court acting as an appellate court raises the issue of the constitutionality of a statute for the first time on appeal are (1) when that issue goes to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court or appellate court over the case, (2) where the failure of the court to raise the issue that a statute was unconstitutional of its own accord amounted to &quot;plain error&quot; or &quot;structural error&quot; by the trial court, or (3) where the trial court ruled in favor of a party for a non-constitutionality related reason which the appellate court finds was incorrect but the appellate court affirms the trial court anyway on the basis of the unconstitutionality of a statute at issue in the case before it. While a legal ruling on the constitutionality of a statute happens in the trial court, however, the ruling is often made prior to an evidentiary trial on the merits of the case, for example, in a ruling on a motion to dismiss a claim (made based upon the allegations of the person brining the claim in court documents alone), in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment (which is similar but is supported by exhibits and affidavits from the parties to develop the factual context), or in a ruling on a pretrial matter (e.g. an evidence suppression hearing before a judge prior to a trial in a criminal case) that is subject to what is called an interlocutory appeal (i.e. an appeal to an appellate court before the entire case is concluded with a trial on the merits). Also, even when there is an evidentiary trial on the merits, the case may be one in which there is a bench trial, rather than a jury trial, since many constitutional questions involve issues that are not subject to the jury trial right. The constitutionality of legislation and also of policies and practices of governments carrying out their duties, is one issue, often one issue of many, that is ruled upon, in the context of litigation between a party that has suffered a particularized injury from the unconstitutional action (as opposed to one shared by all citizens or all taxpayers), against a party that causes or has the power to prevent that injury. So, for the most part, the constitutionality of legislation is decided either in the context of a civil lawsuit, which is governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure (see, e.g., In re A.C.B., 2022CA3 (Colorado Supreme Court January 6, 2022), holding that an indigent defendant in a civil contempt proceeding potentially resulting in incarceration had a right to counsel and vacating the contempt of court ruling entered when he was pro se as a result), or in the context of a criminal case against a criminal defendant subject to the ordinary rules of criminal procedure (see, e.g., U.S. v. Hansen, Case No. 17-10548 (9th Cir. February 10, 2020) reversing on direct appeal from a criminal conviction the trial court's conclusion that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) was constitutional as applied to the fact pattern of Mr. Hansen's case). There is a slight nuance in federal civil and criminal cases where the issue of constitutionality of legislation is raised, and also in most state courts. This is the court rule requirement that the attorney-general (the state attorney-general in the case of state court litigation and in the case of federal court litigation over the constitutionality of a state law, and the federal attorney-general in the case of federal court litigation) be joined as a party to the case in order to present an opportunity for the state or federal government, or both, as the case may be, to chime in on the constitutionality issue that affects far more people than the actual parties to the case. See, e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1. But otherwise, there are no special court rules or procedures that apply to cases in which judicial review of legislation is sought. Also, in the event that one party makes a novel challenge to the constitutionality of legislation, and the government doesn't object because the government agrees with the person challenging the constitutionality of the law, it is common practice for the court to recruit an amicus counsel to argue on behalf of the constitutionality of the law, although this practice isn't uniform and is discretionary. This is a function of case law and custom, rather than being a statutory or court rule requirement, however.
No The importance of following precedent, and the principle of stare decisis were inherited by the early US legal system from the British Common Law system, and have been taken as part of the natural order of the legal system by US courts ever since. This extends even to a court overruling itself. US Courts are notoriously reluctant to overrule their past decisions, even when current court members agree, However they will do so from time to time. The US Supreme Court in particular will flatly overturn previous decisions, especially on Constitutional issues, when it thinks there is no other way to achieve a proper outcome, although it often prefers to distinguish the prior decision without actually overruling it. I think the fastest and most extreme case where the US Supreme Court overruled itself was that of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the second flag-salute case. (This was also a particularly significant case.) This reversed Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) a case on the exact same issue, only three years previously, and a vote of 8-1 on the first case became a vote of 6-3 the other way, with only one new Justice on the Court. Only Justice Frankfurter, the author of the fist decision, issued a dissenting opinion in the Barnette case, and no other Justice formally joined that opinion.
Basically: what Flup said in his last paragraph (and so upvoted accordingly). Every one of the practitioners you named has an undergraduate degree from the UK, and an undergraduate degree from Canada. This, presumably, is because you're not permitted to practise law in most jurisdictions unless you have some kind of qualification in the law of that particular jurisdiction. The laws of each country, and moreover, the way in which cases are decided and in which each country's legal system works, varies so tremendously that you need to study the particulars for each jurisdiction before you can practice there. Regarding Canada: from this site: You must complete a Bachelor of Laws (L.L.B.) program or Juris Doctor (J.D.) program in order to qualify for bar membership in any Canadian province or territory. This generally takes three years to complete. In England and Wales, you can now take a law conversion course in place of an undergraduate law degree as a first stage towards being qualified. I suspect, however, looking at the dates of the judges you list, that the law conversion course wasn't an option at the time they got their qualifications, so their only option was a full undergraduate course. So the answer is: they each have two undergraduate qualifications, one from each jurisdiction, so that they could qualify to practise law in both jurisdictions.
There is one context where this does happen. Common law judges have direct contempt power. This means that while a judge is in the courtroom presiding over a case, the judge can summarily punish someone with incarceration and/or a fine without a trial for &quot;contempt of court&quot; because the judge has personally observed what has happened. Contempt of court encompasses types of disorderly conduct that wouldn't otherwise be criminal conduct. In other contexts, the judge is just one more witness and would not be assigned to handle the case. so you can only get &quot;non-witness judges&quot; from out-of-state or another region. The lawsuit hasn't begun yet, and all of the possible, local judges saw it happen. As a practical matter, this is basically impossible. But there are procedures in cases where large numbers of judges a conflicted out of a case, for example, to get a judge from the next county over or another part of the same state.
No The general common law rule is that a lawsuit requires an actual dispute. This is a contrived dispute with no real-world relevance. With apparent (or even actual) authority to act on behalf of A, you assisted B with making copies. The moment you contrived this scheme and set it into motion, you consented on behalf of A to allow B to use the materials. It is like paying someone to slip and &quot;fall&quot; on your sidewalk so they can sue you. There is no actual dispute, and volunti fit non injuria.
That depends what the issue is. On constitutional issues, and on issues of federal law (which do come up in state cases) , they are binding precedent, at least in that circuit for an appeals court opinion, and in the whole US for a Supreme court opinion. District court opinions are not generally binding unless upheld on appeal. On matters of state law, the state's own highest court is the final word, but a federal opinion could be at least as persuasive as one from a different state. to the best of my understanding one does not use the term &quot;estoppel&quot; to describe the effect of a previous judgement by a different court. If it is in the same case and not on appeal, the term is Res judicata (&quot;A thing (already) judged&quot;). If it is a general matter of adhering to clear precedent, the term Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided.” ) would be used.