A Little Legal Humor

By krisnelson on Jul 4, 2007 in law

Civil law — Wikipedia
Quirky American derivation of Roman law wherein lawyers and judges routinely manipulate a written collection of laws that apply to everyone but the lawyers and judges themselves, who are exempt from observance of said laws; practiced by uncivil lawyers in an uncivil environment and administered by uncivil judges in uncivil courtrooms.

Common law — Wikipedia
Kooky legal doctrine wherein judges are allowed to make up the law as they go along, citing precedents of other knuckle head judges as the basis for their home cooked decisions. Under the table payoffs and campaign contributions from lawyers pleading their cases are common components taken into consideration when common law is determined by judges. See “Campaign contributions.”

Posted in law | Tagged common law, law | Leave a response

Comments
Author
Related
Metadata

krisnelson

I'm currently a graduate student of the history of law and technology at the University of California, San Diego. I also provide law and technology consulting services. Additionally, I'm a non-practicing lawyer and former developer/sysadmin at a biotech non-profit. For more about me and my work, see krisnelson.org or my Google Profile.

Website - Twitter - More Posts

Civil law and courts of equity: the common law is hybrid law
The Roman civil law tradition (which prevails in Europe) has had a larger impact on American jurisprudence than is generally acknowledged. Indeed, although the United States considers itself a common-law country, we in fact use a system that combines common (judge-made, customary, adversarial, precedent-focused) with civil (usually statute-based and inquisitorial) law, but which in England focused on "equity" or fairness and justice.
Civil law's influence on early United States law
It is a law-school maxim today that the United States is a common-law country, while most of Europe uses civil law: English-derived common law has as its most basic tenet the binding nature of judicial precedent, while Roman-derived civil law privileges statutes. But the more I investigate the history and details of each, the more clear it becomes to me that the United States, at least, owes (almost?) as much of its legal system to civil law as it does to "pure" common law.
The (scientific) development of common-law precedent
One of the defining characteristics of common law (as opposed to civil law) is the binding nature of precedent, sometimes referred to by its Latin name of stare decisis. But before the seventeenth century, the defining characteristic of English common law was not this one, but rather that common law reflected universal and customary law, and as such the goal was for judges to utilize previous decisions as merely guides to help them get closer to the true (unwritten) laws of England, not as binding in themselves.
Common law originalism: the common law was not so common
One reason to examine the reception of English common law in the American colonies is the reliance by modern originalists (like Antonin Scalia) on the generalized understandings of what the Constitution meant in light of its common-law context. But finding that stability may not be as easy as it might seem, at least in part because jurists of the time were, in many ways, as sophisticated as we are today in arguing with, against, and around precedent--which itself was hardly either stable or fixed.
Civil law's influence on American common law: the appeal
In "Salamanders and Sons of God," an article in The Many Legalities of Early America, Mary Sarah Bilder writes about the "Culture of Appeal in Early New England," and situates the embrace of the right to appeal by New Englanders within the larger English and Roman legal tradition.