Law case title convention: Why sometimes not &quot;Plaintiff v. Defendant&quot;? Quoted from this page: Plaintiff v Defendant - the "v" is pronounced "and" in civil cases and "against" in criminal cases However, I've seen a few cases not following this rule. For example, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, where the party of Twombly is the plaintiff. Why is that?
In appellate cases, the party appealing is called the "petitioner", and the other party is called the "respondent". These cases are listed Petitioner v. Respondent. In your example, Twombly was the original plaintiff, and Bell was the defendant in a class-action. This initial action would have been referred to as Twombly v. Bell. The case was dismissed by the trial court. Twombly appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. This action would have been still been called Twombly v. Bell, since Twombly was the party petitioning for the appeal. The 2nd Circuit agreed with Twombly, and reversed the district court's decision. Bell, then on the losing side, decided to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Because Bell was the petitioner in this action, Bell gets listed first.
A civil case, however, is often decided by a &quot;bench&quot; (judge) trial. Under what circumstances is a civil case likely to go to a jury trial, and under what circumstances can a party either demand, or prevent a jury trial (aside from a contract where both parties waive their rights to a jury trial)? In federal court, there is a right to a jury trial in cases where the complaint is predominantly based on a &quot;legal&quot; as opposed to an &quot;equitable&quot; theory (roughly speaking claims for money damages v. claims for injunctive relief, but actually based upon historical practice in 18th century England with some select historical exceptions), if the plaintiff demands one with the filing of the Complaint and pays a jury fee, or if the defendant demands one with or shortly after filing an Answer and pays a jury fee, under the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution and related civil procedure rules. Pre- and post-dispute contractual waivers of the right to a jury trial are allowed in most matters (although jury waivers are not allowed for a few kinds of statutory claims)1, and of course, one could also waive not just the right to a civil jury trial, but also a right to court system based dispute resolution with a valid arbitration clause. Many kinds of contracts like promissory notes and written leases, routinely include a jury trial waiver. Other kinds of contracts (e.g. cell phone contracts, bank customer agreements, and securities broker engagement agreements) routinely contain arbitration clauses. 1 The states of California and Georgia are exceptions to the general rule that contractual pre-dispute jury trial waivers are valid. A non-exclusive list of common cases where there is a right to a jury trial (in the absence of a contractual waiver of this right) include: Breach of contract Damages claims for breach of a lease Common law tort claims such as negligence, nuisance, defamation and fraud Civil rights and discrimination claims seeking money damages Patent and copyright infringement cases seeking money damages Non-preliminary claims to recover tangible personal property Will contests Termination of parental rights Eminent domain just compensation hearings The vast majority of personal injury claims are brought are common law negligence tort cases. A non-exclusive list of common cases where there is not a right to a jury trial include: Foreclosure of liens and mortgages Receiverships Core bankruptcy matters (but PI claims in bankruptcy get a jury trial) Dissolution of marriage, legal separation and annulments Child custody Adoption and paternity actions Change of name petitions Municipal or special district incorporation or annexation petitions Probate matters other than will contests (e.g. guardianship and custodianship and trust cases). Claims to reform written instruments Claims to invalidate contracts on equitable grounds (e.g. mistake) Fraudulent transfer lawsuits (even if for money damages) Disputes involving management of a corporation Suits seeking principally injunctive relief other than recovery of tangible personal property Quiet title cases involving real estate Preliminary relief in the nature of eviction, attachment, or preliminary recovery of tangible personal property pending a determination on the merits Juvenile delinquency cases Hearings on the right to bring an eminent domain proceeding Court of claims suits for money damages against a governmental entity Suits seeking to declare a statute unconstitutional or invalid Actions to invoke, assist, or enforce an arbitration clause Election law disputes not predominantly seeking money damages Partition cases (to divide or sell co-owned real estate) Cases seeking an accounting (e.g. between partners in a partnership) Tax refund lawsuits (Phillips v. Commissioner , 283 U.S. 589 (1931); Franchise Tax Bd. v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 2177248 (Cal., June 6, 2011)). The nature of counterclaims asserted is irrelevant to the jury trial right in federal court. But, in federal court, the case can be dismissed pursuant to a FRCP 12 motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings (basically for jurisdictional reasons or for failure to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be granted), or can be resolved because all of the claims that give rise to the jury trial can be resolved as a matter of law based upon undisputed facts stated in affidavits under FRCP 56 (motion for summary judgment), or can be dismissed as a discovery sanction pursuant to FRCP 37, or can be dismissed due to a settlement reached by the parties pursuant to FRCP 41, or can be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If a jury is properly demanded and is not dismissed before trial, then the case will proceed to a trial by jury, but the jury will decide only &quot;legal&quot; claims in the case while the judge will decide any &quot;equitable&quot; claims in the case, when there is a jury trial. In most U.S. states and territories (other than Louisiana, Commonwealth court cases Puerto Rico and territorial court cases in American Samoa) which have civil legal systems based upon the French, Spanish and German legal systems respectively), the right to a civil jury trial is essentially the same, but arises under a state constitution, a state law, or a state court rule, since the 7th Amendment does not apply to state court proceedings. But, jury trials are often prohibited is small claims court cases. In actual practice, civil jury trials are quite rare (and have grown much more rare in both state and federal court over the last several decades). About 75% of civil jury trials involve personal injury tort causes, civil rights cases, or fraud. There is a right to a jury trial in contract cases (although many contracts contain pre-dispute waivers of the right to a jury trial), but it is much less common for either party to demand a jury trial in a breach of contract case that does not involve fraud than it is in tort or civil rights cases are involved. A jury is demanded is almost every case in which part of the damages sought include non-economic damages (e.g. pain and suffering, or emotional distress), or exemplary damages (i.e. punitive damages) are sought. For example, here is a breakdown of bench and jury trials held in 2005 in Colorado in state and federal court combined based upon their respective annual reports (which is fairly typical although jury trials were slightly less common across the board in 2016): Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Cases Infraction Final Hearings 8764 Traffic Trial To Court 187 (33%) Misdemeanor Trial To Court 298 (31%) Juvenile Trial To Court 281 (Delinquency and Parental Rights Terminations) (89%) District Court Criminal Trial To Court 28 (Mostly Felonies) (3%) Federal District Court Criminal Trial To Court 15* (41%) Subtotal: 809 (excludes infractions) (29%) Traffic Jury Trial 386 Misdemeanor Jury Trial 651 Juvenile Jury Trial 35 (Parental Rights Terminations) District Court Criminal Jury Trial 857 (Mostly Felonies) Federal District Court Criminal Jury Trial 22 Subtotal: 1,951 Criminal and quasi-criminal jury trials make up about 85% of all jury trials in Colorado. Civil Cases Civil Cases Small Claims Trial To Court 3,485 (100%) County Court Civil Trial To Court 1,236 (99%) District Court Civil Trial To Court 280 (50%) Evidentiary Federal Magistrate Civil Hearings 9 (100%) Evidentiary Federal Magistrate Prisoner's Case Hearings 7 (100%) Federal District Court Civil Trial To Court 36* (46%) Subtotal: 5,053 (94%) County Court Civil Jury Trial 17 District Court Civil Jury Trial 277 Federal District Court Civil Jury Trial 43 Subtotal: 337 Civil jury trials make up about 15% of all jury trials in Colorado In national statistics, about three-quarters of general jurisdiction state trial court jury trials are in personal injury cases. The available data makes it impossible to determine if this is true in Colorado, although there is no reason to think that Colorado is atypical in this regard. If Colorado is typical, about 95% of jury trials in Colorado are for criminal, quasi-criminal or personal injury cases, while all other cases account for about 5% of jury trials. Excludes 30 pre-trial evidentiary hearings and 7 evidentiary sentencing hearings. ** Excludes 36 evidentiary hearings in preliminary matters and motions, etc. In Colorado, small claims cases are up to $7,500 and county court has a $15,000 jurisdictional threshold. There is no dollar limit on federal question cases in federal court but diversity cases in federal court must have $75,000 or more in controversy. As the statistics above illustrate, a significant minority of criminal cases are tried in bench trials. About 3% of state felony trials are bench trials (the federal court data includes both bench trials in federal misdemeanor cases and bench trials in federal felony trials). About 30% of misdemeanor trials are bench trials rather than jury trials. More than 95% of civil cases in both state and federal courts, and more than 95% federal criminal cases are resolved by default, dismissal on motion, voluntary dismissal, or settlement before trial. About 80%-90% of state criminal cases are plea bargained and therefore do not go to trial. Federal civil cases are proportionately more likely to go to a jury trial than state general jurisdiction court civil cases.
The legal standard is whether the allegedly infringing mark is confusingly similar to the mark that is allegedly infringed. This is a mixed question of fact and law usually determined by the trier of fact (which is the jury, in a jury trial where there is a colorable dispute of fact regarding the issue).
There are a lot more differences than this, but if your teacher sums up what he/she means by that sentence. Here, specifically, in Civil Law, the decision of the courts must comply with the laws as enacted, which means there are specific statutes required to make something illegal. Common Law features Stare Decisis which basically means that if Case A is decided in one way, and Case B is a similar Case to Case B, Case B must yield the same decision for all cases in that jurisdiction and lower courts below that court. This means that while statutes (laws) can be made by a legislature, the courts can "make law" by deciding cases. For example, some States in the United States and England and Wales only recently (within the past 30 years) adopted an actual law that made murder illegal? Prior to that murder was illegal under Common Law Murder that had been based on precedence from bazillion cases before that said it's illegal. Nobody bothered to write it down in an actual law. There are several other big differences such as Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial nature of courts, how and when punishments are decided (The famous "Just following Orders" Defense was given in part because of this difference and a lack of understanding over it.), who is the trier of fact vs. who is the trier of law, but as far as what is "Law" this is a good single summation of the difference in a single sentence. But it really shouldn't be condensed to a single sentence.
They have the same standard of proof but different onus The legal system places the onus of proving an allegation on the person making the allegation. For your example, this is A if they are suing B or the government prosecutor if B is being prosecuted. The standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” if B is defending a criminal prosecution and “balance of probabilities” if B is defending a civil prosecution or a lawsuit. Courts have historically been reluctant to define these terms further because doing so can lay grounds for an appeal if the judge oversteps so they mean what their plain English formulation means and what they mean precisely in any given case is one of the things the trier of fact has to decide. For A or the prosecutor to win, they have to meet this burden for each and every element of the offence or cause of action; if they don’t, then B wins. So, B doesn’t have to offer a defence at all and will still win if A doesn’t meet their burden. If B does offer a defence then the trier of fact compares the evidence of each side and decides which they prefer and therefore whether A has met their burden. A jury doesn’t have to give reasons for their decision; a judge does. In general, the decisions of the trier of fact are not appealable unless there was no reasonable basis in evidence to support the decision. For example, the evidence of B might not be believed - this is fine, unless the reason for not believing it is that B has a beard and everyone with beards are liars. Options 2 and 3 are simple matters of comparing evidence and deciding which is preferred. Option 1 is different; it is what’s called an affirmative defence. Here, A has met their burden because B conceded. Now B is relying on the position that they had a legal excuse, that is B is alleging a position and B has the burden of proving it. Now, the burden on B is always “balance of probabilities” because B is not alleging that anyone committed a crime so they don’t have to reach the criminal standard.
The Supreme Court does not handle hypotheticals. The court has interpreted Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution, the Case or Controversy Clause as a limit on the powers of the judicial branch. The courts have jurisdiction over various types of cases and controversies but only those listed in the Constitution. This limits courts to hearing actual cases and prevents them from issuing advisory opinions. Additionally, in order to bring a case, the plaintiff must have standing to bring the suit. You can't sue the government just because you don't like a law (well, you can, your suit will just be dismissed because it lacks standing). You have to show That you have been, or will imminently be, injured (injury-in-fact) That there is a direct correlation between that injury and the law (causation) And that a favorable court decision will redress the injury (redressability) As a practical matter, the courts are already overwhelmed by the number of actual cases that come up and the Supreme Court can only hear a tiny fraction of the cases they are asked to hear. If they added the ability to hear hypothetical cases as well, the court could easily be overwhelmed by Senators and Representatives asking them to weigh in on every remotely controversial bill or amendment before Congress or interest groups bringing cases for speculative grievances.
A lawsuit would be unsuccessful. Prosecutors have discretion to prioritize whichever offenses they think are most important, and they are generally immune from civil liability. This is a political grievance, and it comes with a political remedy; voters can recall the DA or vote for a new one when his term ends.
Can defense request findings of fact before resting? Is it possible for the Defense to avoid presenting affirmative defenses (like Self Defense) before the Court has found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime? If so: How? No, no and not applicable. A verdict is a singular declaration by the jury (or judge) that the state has or has not proved their case. Affirmative Defence These are all affirmative defenses which defeat or mitigate the consequences of the unlawful conduct and the onus of proof lies with the Defence, not the Prosecution. An affirmative defence must be pleaded in a timely manner. If the Prosecution fails in their burden to prove the unlawful conduct the affirmative defence does not get engaged. This is a threshold decision point for the trier of fact and the judge should so instruct the jury. Of necessity, affirmative defences require some admission of fact, however, these facts may not be in contention anyway. Where they are in contention, it requires a strategic choice by the defendant as to whether to use the affirmative defence or not. Is there some theory or principle that illuminates why this is not considered a violation of the Defendant's fifth-amendment rights? Because the defendant is not compelled to make these defences.