Laws Applied By Courts: Understanding Legal Jurisdiction

The law a court applies depends on the type of court and the nature of the case. The US has parallel court systems at the federal and state levels, each divided into trial courts and appellate courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the US Constitution or federal statutes. State courts may hear cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter. In civil cases, the plaintiff can choose to bring the case in state or federal court, but in criminal cases, states can only bring prosecutions in state courts, and the federal government can only prosecute in federal court. In terms of the law applied, federal courts apply federal law to substantive law issues and federal law to procedural law issues. Common law, which is based on legal precedents, influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law.

Common law vs civil law

Common law and civil law are two distinct legal systems with different approaches to the law. Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents and judicial decisions. It originated in medieval England and is practised in countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. Civil law, on the other hand, is a comprehensive, codified set of legal statutes created by legislators. It stems from ancient Roman law and was later influenced by Napoleonic France, Italy, and Germany. Civil law is prevalent in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa.

A key difference between the two systems is their approach to precedent. Common law places significant emphasis on stare decisis, which means adhering to past judicial decisions as legally binding precedents. Judges in common law jurisdictions have the power to make laws in certain areas and interpret statutes to adapt to new situations. In contrast, civil law holds case law secondary to statutory law and does not consider judicial precedent as binding. Civil law jurisdictions tend to have more detailed laws enacted by legislators, who are often graduates appointed straight out of university.

Another distinction lies in their sources of law. Common law, being unwritten, relies on detailed records of past cases and statutes to guide future decisions. It fills in the gaps where existing statutes or written rules do not provide a clear outcome. Civil law, on the other hand, is codified into referable systems, with concise and broadly applicable texts that avoid factually specific scenarios. Civil law codes explain the principles of law, rights, entitlements, and basic legal mechanisms, providing citizens with a written collection of laws that judges must follow.

The appointment of judges also differs between the two systems. In common law jurisdictions, judges are usually appointed after successful legal careers, often as barristers or lawyers. In civil law jurisdictions, judges are often appointed straight out of university, with little to no legal practice experience. This difference in career paths can influence a judge's worldview and approach to legal disputes.

It is worth noting that the US operates under a dual system of both common and civil law. While the courts generally follow common law, there are instances where civil law comes into play, such as in Louisiana, which follows a mix of civil and common law. Additionally, the US Constitution and certain areas of law, like contract interpretation and torts, have been influenced by both civil and common law traditions.

Federal or state law

The law that a court will apply depends on the type of court and the nature of the case. The US has parallel court systems at the federal and state levels, and both are divided into trial courts and appellate courts.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the US Constitution or federal statutes. The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties. This type of jurisdiction is called "original jurisdiction".

State courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction unless federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over a matter. For example, federal law grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over bankruptcy cases.

The Erie doctrine states that federal courts, when confronted with the issue of whether to apply federal or state law in a lawsuit, must apply state law on issues of substantive law. When the legal question is based on a procedural issue, the federal courts should apply federal law. Substantive laws create and regulate the rights and duties of people and entities, while procedural laws establish the steps and procedures that lawyers and courts must follow during a lawsuit.

Criminal proceedings can be conducted under either state or federal law, depending on the nature and extent of the crime. Civil cases are similar but deal with disputes between individuals or organizations.

Procedural law

The Erie Doctrine, based on the US Supreme Court case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), guides federal courts in deciding whether to apply federal or state law in a lawsuit. The doctrine states that federal courts should apply state law on issues of substantive law and federal law on issues of procedural law. Substantive laws create and regulate the rights and duties of people and entities, while procedural laws establish the steps and procedures for lawsuits.

The Rules of Decision Act (RDA), created by Congress in 1789, forms the foundation of the Erie Doctrine. The RDA requires federal courts to apply state law in all cases except where there is an applicable federal law, Constitutional provision, or treaty that addresses the same issue. This Act recognises the potential for conflicts between federal and state law and aims to provide clarity in such situations.

Substantive law

In the US, substantive law can be common law or civil law. Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. It draws from institutionalised opinions and interpretations from judicial authorities and public juries. It is also known as case law. Civil law, on the other hand, is a comprehensive, codified set of legal statutes created by legislators.

In the US, the federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorised by the US Constitution or federal statutes. The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties. This is known as "original jurisdiction".

The Erie doctrine states that federal courts, when confronted with the issue of whether to apply federal or state law in a lawsuit, must apply state law on issues of substantive law. When the legal question is based on a procedural issue, the federal courts should apply federal law.

The Rules of Decision Act (RDA) is a federal statute that states that, in the absence of a federal law, Constitutional provision, or treaty, the courts should apply state law where it applies.

Original jurisdiction

The law that a court will apply depends on the type of court and the nature of the case. The US has parallel court systems at the federal and state levels, both of which are divided into trial courts and appellate courts.

The US federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. The district courts are the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties. This type of jurisdiction is called "original jurisdiction". Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the US Constitution or federal statutes.

In some cases, such as disputes between two or more US states, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, which cannot be stripped by Congress. The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction over limited types of cases, including those involving ambassadors and other diplomats, and cases between states.

The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties. This type of jurisdiction is called "original jurisdiction".

State courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction unless the federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over a matter. For example, in the 1876 case of *Claflin v Houseman*, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. However, federal law now grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts.

In cases where the court's jurisdiction is based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the Erie doctrine assists federal courts and attorneys in determining which law should be applied. The Erie doctrine states that federal courts must apply state law on issues of substantive law and federal law on issues of procedural law.

Frequently asked questions