I’ve noticed that most of the famous legal cases that changed our laws were civil cases. Why is that? For example: Roe v. Wade, Brown vs. Board of Education. What were these cases actually about? To take the first example: I assume “Roe” wanted to have an abortion, but it was illegal. So why did she sue “Wade”? Who was “Wade” anyway? Were there monitary damages involved? Since the case eventually reached the supreme court, I guess “Roe” must have originally lost the case. In criminal trials, only the defendant can appeal. Under what circumstances can the plaintiff appeal in a civil case? Under what circumstances does an overturned verdict result in a precedent that changes the law? Do criminal trials ever result in law-changing precedents as well? Who was Brown and where was the Board of Education? Who invented liquid soap and why?
Sorry for all the questions. Anyone have the straight dope?
“For what a man had rather were true, he more readily believes” - Francis Bacon
“Roe” was a fictitious name. “Mary Roe” is the female version of “John Doe”. If I remember rightly, “Wade” was some state’s Attorney General. “Board of Education” is short for “Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas”.
And, yes, precedents are created by criminal trials, such as the famous Miranda case. But most precedents are in civil law, because civil law generally involves much more complicated stuff (there are a lot of iffy ways to break a contract, whereas most crimes are clearly either committed or not committed), and because criminal cases in the USA that involve issues of law (rather than issues of fact) usually end either in a law being overturned, after which the precedent is moot, at least in that jurisdiction, because the law in question is gone, or in a law not being overturned, in which case 99% of trials won’t even raise the issue, so the precedent isn’t invoked. That means that, in practice, most criminal-law precedents that actually get brought up involve iffy issues of police procedure.
If a real lawyer wishes to correct me, go ahead, but I think I got most of that right.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
[quote]
Under what circumstances can the plaintiff appeal in a civil case?
[/quote}
In any circumstances. Usually, though it’s when the verdict goest against you.
When the Supreme Court overturns the verdict. Lower courts can stop the laws from being enforced on appeal, but it is still law until the Supreme Court (or State Supreme Court) rules.
No reason they couldn’t. The defendant can appeal to the Supreme Court, which could rule the law unconstitutional.
Don’t know Brown, but it was the Board of Education of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Jane Roe was a 21-year-old pregnant single mother named Norma McCorvey (“Roe” was, of course, a pseudonym – they had already used “Doe” in the case)
She sued Wade to have the abortion laws affecting her declared unconstitutional. Her suit was amended later to a class-action.
Henry Wade was the District Attorney for Dallas County in Texas.
No monetary damages were involved.
The lower court (actually a 3-judge panel) basically ruled in favor of Roe, declaring, among other things, that the Texas abortion statutes void because they were vague and overbroadly infringed on Roe’s Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The State (through Wade) appealed. There were also issues of declarative relief vs. injunctive relief, so Roe appealed as well.
The plaintiff in a civil case can appeal any ruling with which he or she is displeased.
Any ruling which addresses the merits of a case (or even the procedure of a case) can provide a precedent. This includes rulings which overturned verdicts. How important a ruling is as a precedent is somewhat dependent on how specifically the court addresses an issue (courts generally prefer to decide very narrowly and not decide issues they don’t have to if there is another way of disposing of a case) and, of course, whether the Supreme Court has ruled on that specific matter.
Criminal case rulings do result in law-changing precedents as well. Criminal law, especially in the 60s and 70s, resulted in numerous famous cases which fundamentally changed things, including Gideon (remember “Gideon’s Trumpet”?), Robles, Miranda (the source of, among other things, those warnings), and dozens of death penalty cases (including Furman and Gregg).
Oliver Brown was a black resident of Topeka Kansas. He had tried to enroll his daughter Linda in a white school and was turned down, so he went to the NAACP. They filed suit to attempt to get an injunction forbidding Topeka from continuing to segregate public schools.
Board of Education was the Board of Education for Topeka, Kansas – which was technically the body continuing to enforce segregation in public shools.
RealityChuck is correct in his answer that either side – plaintiff or defendant – may seek an appeal in a civil case.
But the “right” to appeal a civil ruling is “guaranteed” only providing you have the money to do so. In other words, unlike a criminal judgment, there is no real right to appeal a civil ruling – only the ability to do so should you have the resources. You could receive a heinously unfair judgment and be unable to appeal because you lack the funds to do so.
On a legal thread, perhaps someone can answer this question:
The 6th Amendment to the Constitution enumerates the rights of a criminal defendant. These include the right to a speedy trial by a jury of peers and the assistance of defense counsel. The 6th makes no mention of a right to appeal a ruling.
Where does the defendant’s guaranteed right to appeal a criminal ruling come from? It does not seem to be Constitutional in origin.
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
STARK – I found you kind of confusing in your use of “ability” versus “right.” Both criminal and civil litigants who receive a negative outcome of their case have the right to appeal, assuming they can afford to do so, and assuming there are grounds to sustain the appeal. (You can’t just appeal a case because you don’t like the decision – well, you CAN, but the appeal will be thrown out – you must have grounds to appeal; that is, you must be able to show reason for the decision to be overturned, such as error at the trial court level, or ineffective assistance of counsel, or whatever.) But what is meant by “ability” to appeal? While you may be correct in the real world that if you can’t afford a lawyer you (probably) can’t successfully pursue an appeal, under the law you MAY appeal without a lawyer and represent yourself. Therefore an appellant’s practical inability to pay a lawyer doesn’t mean he or she is foreclosed from appeal. Many (too many) civil and criminal appellants appeal pro se. They are generally inarticulate and unsure of the law, but they are fully within their rights to do so, and the courts generally give them a lot of latitude because they (the courts) recognize that they (the appellants) are more or less winging it.
Therefore, since a lawyer isn’t technically necessary to pursue an appeal, you don’t have a FEDERAL constitutional right to have one for appeal. Many states have statutes that provide that counsel will be provided for criminal defendants on appeal, but such statutes vary state by state – my state, for example, doesn’t have one. Some state constitutions also provide this right – again, my state does not. And many individual public defender offices allow (or even insist) that their attorneys pursue the case through appeal, if grounds for appeal exist – this falls within the requirement that lawyers provide effective assistance, and failure to appeal may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. But there’s no constitutional mandate. The constitutional right to counsel at trial is to prevent defendants from being “railroaded” into prison (Gideon v. Wainright); once you’re convicted however, you may be on your own.
It is sometimes forgotten that the Constitution is not like, say, a computer architectural specification. It was written by lawyers who took for granted the existence of English law. (Any English law that was in force on July 1, 1776, not directly relating to the question of independence, and not specifically abrogated by the Constitution or by subsequent legislation, still applies in the United States, and English precedents still apply, as well. Even a contemporary English legal decision could, in theory, have some non-binding weight in a modern US trial. The same is true of laws and precedents of the colonies, up to the adoption of the Constitution. This system of law was extended to 36 other states, but Louisiana still works on French law, albeit considerably diluted over the years by time and the Constitution.)
You have a right to an appeal because that’s what higher courts are for. The Framers didn’t bother to mention it, because everybody knew it, and there was no change being made.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
John, do you have some citation to English precedents applying in the US? I’m willing to believe that English law and case law is persuasive in many areas of the law, but I have difficulty believing that it is any more than persuasive - particularly in states with legal systems influenced by civil law systems.
This is basically correct. 49 states use the common law, while one, Louisiana, uses basically the civil law (the Napoleonic Code, with some modifications).
The common law is/are the precedents arising from appellate-court decisions. It is applied when there is no statute on the issue, and of course a statute trumps the common law. These precedents include English cases up to independence, or some other similar date, and of course state court cases.
The common law exists because there are thousands of issues that arise in everyday human dealings that need to be resolved even though the legislature or Congress hasn’t made a law on the point. So when these disputes are resolved by the courts, the rules in these cases are applied to similar cases in the future, or future cases are “distinguished” from the earlier case – the court finds that the present case is different enough from the precedential case that the precedent doesn’t apply. Since most of these disputes are between private parties, and thus are civil suits rather than criminal actions, that’s why so much precedent comes from civil cases.
To give an example of a state (in this instance, Illinois) law adopting the common law, including English cases, see 5 Il. Comp. Stat. § 50/1:
That the common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of, and to supply the defects of the common law, prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the
second section of the sixth chapter of 43d Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of 13th Elizabeth, and ninth chapter of 37th Henry Eighth, and which are of a general nature and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority.
A large portion of the ambiguity of the law lies in the fact the regional court will say “A,” another regional court will say “B” when both are appealed to the US Supreame Court the court won’t review either case thus you have to seperate points equally legal.
Not necessarily true. More correct would be that, unless you get involved in criminal law (either as a participant in crime or as a system cog), you don’t tend to have criminal case law brought to your attention. Most people only know about Miranda through Adam-12, and how many civilians would be expected to bone up on the case law regarding asset forfeiture, illegal search and seizure, proper interpretation of RICO statutes, etc?
Anyone know if there are more civil as opposed to criminal decisions issuing from the US Sup Court these days?
It is rarely a good idea to assume anything about a case from the title of the decision on appeal. As pointed out in previous posts, no monetary damages were involved in Roe, and the reason has to do with why Wade was a party to the case. The best way to understand the procedural and factual history of a case is to read the decision from the Supreme Court.
This is an incorrect statement. Both sides in a criminal case can appeal. But the utility of an appeal by the ‘state’ may be small, depending on what ‘error’ the prosecution claims occurred. Double jeopardy rules may prevent re-trial if the state wins the appeal.
The plaintiff can appeal anything the plaintiff doesn’t like about what the fact-finder and/or law applier did during the trial. The defendant in a civil case has the same right. Sometimes, the appeal can occur while the trial is still going, on most occaisions, the appeal must await the conclusion of the trial. Every appelate court has specific rules about how and when to appeal; you have to look them up to know for certain.
Precedent ‘changes law’ two ways: a) by ruling that a statute or regulation are unconstitutional (thus unenforceable), and b) by overturning prior precedent on which the law has relied. In general, American law relies on the idea of stare decisis, which basically means that what the court has once decided it won’t re-examine. This provides stability to American law. When the US Supreme Court issues a decision regarding federal constitutional law, we live with it for a long time, ususally. Sometimes, though, the passage of time makes clear that the original decision should be re-examined. Thus, in Brown v. Board of Education the court re-examined the meaning of the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause, a subject they had previously addressed in Plessy v. Ferguson in the late 1800’s. The court used Brown to overturn the decision in Plessy[u/], changing the law regarding segregation of services by racial makeup.
Most definitely. Example prime for most of us is Mapp v. Ohio which (if memory has not deserted me totally) applied the exclusionary rule (making unconstitutionally obtained evidence unable to be used by the prosecution) to the states. This has affected criminal law tremendously.
The US Supreme Court has several different jurisdictions, all set out in Art III of the US Constitution - including disputes over the Constitution, meaning that it can even deal with a state law case if the US Constitution is involved.
MANY many more decisions are issued by the Supreme Courts of the various states, and many of them have far more impact on your day-to-day life, but they often are not noticed because they get limited exposure in the media. Li v. Yellow Cab totally changed the way civil tort litigation in California is handled, simply by making damages available to the extent a defendant was comparatively negligent.
This is basically correct. 49 states use the common law, while one, Louisiana, uses basically the civil law (the Napoleonic Code, with some modifications).>>>
And of course, Indiana. There, the law makes no sense.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
The 6th Amendment doesn’t refer to appeals because it reflects the English law at the time of the American revolution. Under English law, there wasn’t a general right of appeal in criminal cases, at least not what we today mean by an appeal. England didn’t establish a regular criminal court of appeal until around 1900 (date approximate).
Superior courts had limited powers to review the decision of a lower court, by writs such as certiorari and writ of error, but these were not nearly such broad remedies as a modern right of appeal. As well, an accused could move for the trial court to set aside its own verdict, on the basis of an error or injustice. In the English court system, an accused could also ask the trial judge to “state a case” or “reserve a point of law,” for discussion by a group of the superior court judges. This also served in a fashion similar to an appeal in some cases.
As to appeals in criminal cases - I thought that the state couldn’t appeal a jury verdict of acquittal in the U.S., because of the 7th Amendment. For example, the D.A. couldn’t appeal the OJ acquittal. Have I got that right?
Read the 7th Amendment. It entitles you to a jury trial in a civil case where the matter in controversy is at least $20 and the suit is grounded in common law.
No civil jury’s finding of fact can be re-examined in such cases except as allowed by common law. Common law included appeals, so an appelate court can ‘re-examine’ the facts, but it can’t be done by a collateral attack enabled by a statute.
Just to throw a monkey wench into the works, the term “appeal” means two different things in law:
Your legal right to take a decision to a higher court because the judge was being prejudiced, a blithering idiot, or other appropriate ground. These are clearly spelled out in law, and are very few in number. With vanishingly rare exceptions, you have no right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Your ability to take a case that went against you to a higher court. Included in this are:
a. Appeal as defined in #1
b. Certiorari, which is a petition you file with the higher court “praying” (in the legal sense) that they hear your case and detailing your grounds for asking this, and the writ the court may (but need not) grant in response to your petition, ordering the lower court, you, and your opponent to send material up and prepare for an appellate hearing. Most Supreme Court cases and a large number of state and Federal appeals are through this route. The point is that it’s up to the court to decide whether to hear your ‘appeal.’
c. Certification, which is effectively a (chicken) lower court judge figuring that the law in the case has gotten over his head or too controversial for him, and sending the issue at hand to the higher court for a ruling. Example: the lawsuit hinges on whether what Doe called Roe is prohibited hate speech or legally protected free expression of opinion. Precedent does not directly address this situation, and similar cases are mixed. Judge X sends it to his superior court to sort it out and tell him which way to rule on that issue, which in turn will help him rule on the lawsuit.
To confuse the issue even further, at common law in Certiorari the Kings Bench was strictly correcting errors of jurisdiction; meaning whether or not a lower courts action was within powers, although through case law it was established that a patently wrong decision was also excess of powers.
As I understand it, IANAL (IAN even close to being AL):
Generally people are under the impression that an appeal is “I don’t like the way the judge ruled on my case. I want a second opinion.” This is not the case.
In fact, the appeal court does not re-hear the case - they listen to arguments from both sides as to whether a mistake was made in the handling of the case. The law was wrongly applied, the law was not constitutional, the judge did not manage the trial correctly, etc.
The appeal court will not, for example, second-guess a judge or jury on whether the story of Witness A should have been believed over Witness B. What they seem to be good at, though, is finding technical reasons to overturn a decision when they feel a miscarriage of justice has happened.
First, the side seeking appeal has to explain in writing why the error exists, and if they are persuasive enough the appeal court will hear the sides argue it out. (Except, see “Ceritification” above).
If the appeal court thinks the problem is such that the case should be heard again, with their changes or clarifications, they will order a new trial. The appeal court does not re-hear the whole case themselves, they only clarify issues arising from the trial.
If the appeal court thinks that the clarification they issue settles the case (“This law is unconstitutional”) then the the case is settled because there is no way to rehear the case under the new decision.
Generally it seems the higher courts avoid making snap judgements. hey hear cases of extreme importance (“Who is the president?”). They often hear cases about pressing social issues or the cosntitutionality of laws when they see a large number of similar cases being appealed or if two of the circuits below them issue conflicting judgements.
Quite often you will hear that a case is decided on very narrow grounds, so that there is even more wiggle room if further issues arise.
Don’t mistake lack of inclination to interfere with a factual finding with lack of jurisdiction to do so. If the finding is so perverse or based upon no evidence or a major misreading of the same, then the Appellate Court will overturn it. However, they will not overturn it merely because they disagree with it.
Of course their is a further complication, it depends on the standard of review. In some rare, but not unknown cases, the standard of review may be de novo meaning its reconsidered afresh, while on the opposite end of the spectrum the review may be arbitary or capricious, meaning that they will not overturn it unless the decision is one no reasonable tribunal could have reached.
And I just realised I misread the date on the earlier posts, its from 1999, not 2009 as I thought.:eek::eek: