Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Extramural
Third, Dog,
How can an equity or "legal" court deal with Common law matters?
|
Dear Extramural:
Many people who post here do not seem to understand what the common law actually is. Simply put, it is this: judge made law. Also known as case law or precedent.
The common law is not something that exists on its own, like the laws of physics. The laws of physics are what they are, and it is up to humans to discern what they are. Thanks to men like Newton and Einstein, our understanding of them has improved over time.
But the common law is the creation of human beings...judges, to be precise. Although it's a user-edited website and therefore not authoritative, I think that wikipedia gives a pretty good description in its article "common law":
Quote:
In common law legal systems, the law is created and/or refined by judges: a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent.[1] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an "ideal" common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will decide as a "matter of first impression." Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.
In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the "ideal" system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of non-appellate courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to similar rules, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
|
The reported decisions of the Minnesota Supreme Court overturning the rather insane blatherings of Justice of the Peace Mahoney ARE common law. They create binding precedent on every lower court in that state. Other courts may look at them as persuasive precedent.
As to law vs. equity...the strict separation of courts of law (that award money damages) and those of equity (which issue injunctions and other non-monetary forms of relief), as was maintained in England centuries ago, has largely been done away with in this country. Typically, every county has a court of general jurisdiction that can grant relief both in law and in equity. In Georgia, these are called Superior Courts, and every county has one. Inferior courts, such as the Justice of the Peace Court involved in Credit River, have only such jurisdiction as the constitution and statute laws of their states confer upon them. And that is one reason the Minnesota Supreme Court vacated Mahoney's decision...he had completely exceeded the jurisdictional authority of a Justice of the Peace court, since Minnesota law had for over 100 years at that point (since 1861) forbidden Justice of the Peace courts to grant equitable relief.
I hope this explanation has worked to enlighten you.