| Line 178: |
Line 178: |
| | Each State also has its own Supreme Court to oversee the state court system. However, its name is not always “Supreme Court.” In New York, oddly enough, the “Supreme Court” is the name for the trial (lowest) level. The highest appellate court is the “New York Court of Appeals.” | | Each State also has its own Supreme Court to oversee the state court system. However, its name is not always “Supreme Court.” In New York, oddly enough, the “Supreme Court” is the name for the trial (lowest) level. The highest appellate court is the “New York Court of Appeals.” |
| | | | |
| | + | == The American Rule == |
| | | | |
| | + | Unlike most countries, in the United States the general rule is that each side pays its own attorneys fees, no matter who wins. In England and many other countries, the side that wins the case can recover his legal expenses from the losing side. Typically that is not allowed here, except where a special law allows it. |
| | | | |
| − | Most cases in federal court are “civil” disputes, whereby the government or a private party brings non-criminal charges against a defendant. Commercial disputes and claims of personal injury are the vast majority of these cases. [I highly doubt this is true; I would say (although I don't have any evidence) that debt collection claims, eviction controversies, and other small claims would be far more frequent, which explains why there are special small claims courts for handling these types of cases. In addition, I think family law, bankruptcy, and employment discrimination cases make up a substantial portion of the courts' caseload. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 00:02, 13 October 2012 (EDT)] Often they require many years and much legal fees before resolution. Rarely do the parties recover more than they spent in attorneys fees. However, although the general American rule is that parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees, certain laws (such as civil rights laws) allow for a prevailing party to recover attorneys fees from the opponent.
| + | Americans have a respect for the “day in court.” In the old days, someone who felt he was wronged would challenge his opponent to a duel. Within days they would meet at dawn somewhere and try to kill each other, often leaving one dead. That practice was stopped by prosecuting the person who survived for murder. Now this type of dispute is resolved by one person suing the other. Win or lose, at the end each side feels some relief for having their “day in court” to vent their grievance. |
| | | | |
| − | Americans do this because they like their “day in court.” In the old days, someone who felt he was wronged would challenge his opponent to a duel. Within days they would meet at dawn somewhere and try to kill each other, often leaving one dead. That practice was stopped by prosecuting the person who survived for murder. Now this type of dispute is resolved by one person suing the other. Win or lose, at the end they feel received their “day in court” to vent their grievance.
| + | Trials are more common in state court than in federal court. In federal court today, fewer than 1% of cases reach a trial.<ref>http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/JudicialBusiness2011.pdf</ref> Federal cases are often settled or disposed of without a trial. |
| | | | |
| − | It should be noted that in federal court, fewer than 1% of cases reach a trial.[http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/JudicialBusiness2011.pdf] Cases are often settled or disposed of without a trial.
| + | == Appellate Court == |
| − | | |
| − | '''VI. Appellate Judges'''
| |
| | | | |
| | Appellate judges have a very different job from trial judges. The appellate judges must establish rules that render justice in the case before them, and in all other cases having similar facts. They need to look beyond the dispute at hand and anticipate justice in future disputes also. | | Appellate judges have a very different job from trial judges. The appellate judges must establish rules that render justice in the case before them, and in all other cases having similar facts. They need to look beyond the dispute at hand and anticipate justice in future disputes also. |
| Line 198: |
Line 198: |
| | This can also be seen in the Establishment Clause cases, such as the Ten Commandments case. Some feel that Judge Roy Moore should have removed the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court. Though supportive of religion, they feel that a few citizens might have been offended by the display. But that argument becomes a slippery slope. Where does the purging of religion from public life stop? Its logic requires purging all religious references from public life: “In God We Trust” from our coins, and “under God” from our pledge of allegiance. Before long, society slides down to the bottom of the hill, and hostility to religion has triumphed. | | This can also be seen in the Establishment Clause cases, such as the Ten Commandments case. Some feel that Judge Roy Moore should have removed the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court. Though supportive of religion, they feel that a few citizens might have been offended by the display. But that argument becomes a slippery slope. Where does the purging of religion from public life stop? Its logic requires purging all religious references from public life: “In God We Trust” from our coins, and “under God” from our pledge of allegiance. Before long, society slides down to the bottom of the hill, and hostility to religion has triumphed. |
| | | | |
| − | It’s best to stay off the slippery slope.
| + | It is best to stay off the slippery slope. |
| | | | |
| | == Stare Decisis == | | == Stare Decisis == |