The Seventh Amendment, Modern Procedure and the English Common Law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Judges increasingly use procedural devices which preclude juries from deciding cases or which re-examine decisions by juries. Although the use of these procedures has become a controversial subject in scholarly debate, scholars generally have not questioned their constitutionality. The Seventh Amendment provides that facts tried by a jury may be re-examined only according to the rules of the common law, which the Supreme Court has held means the rules of the English common law in 1791. To determine then the constitutionality of new procedural devices, the Supreme Court has compared them to the procedures under the English common law. In its analyses, the Court has made significant errors, misinterpreting the English common law devices and making inaccurate comparisons of the English devices to the modern procedures. These missteps have led the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of the procedural devices by a vague standard unrelated to the actual characteristics of the English common law. This Article argues that ten principles can be derived from the English common law to begin the re-analysis of the constitutionality of modern procedures that affect the jury trial right. Given the importance that these new procedures, including summary judgment, play in modern litigation, this Article argues that the Court should re-assess the constitutionality of the procedures in light of these principles and stare decisis.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)687-754
Number of pages68
JournalWashington University Law Quarterly
Volume82
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2004

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Jurisprudence

Keywords

  • Seventh Amendment

Cite this

The Seventh Amendment, Modern Procedure and the English Common Law. / Thomas, Suja A.

In: Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 3, 2004, p. 687-754.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4901db89ca124cdc88ce12339846e2f0,
title = "The Seventh Amendment, Modern Procedure and the English Common Law",
abstract = "Judges increasingly use procedural devices which preclude juries from deciding cases or which re-examine decisions by juries. Although the use of these procedures has become a controversial subject in scholarly debate, scholars generally have not questioned their constitutionality. The Seventh Amendment provides that facts tried by a jury may be re-examined only according to the rules of the common law, which the Supreme Court has held means the rules of the English common law in 1791. To determine then the constitutionality of new procedural devices, the Supreme Court has compared them to the procedures under the English common law. In its analyses, the Court has made significant errors, misinterpreting the English common law devices and making inaccurate comparisons of the English devices to the modern procedures. These missteps have led the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of the procedural devices by a vague standard unrelated to the actual characteristics of the English common law. This Article argues that ten principles can be derived from the English common law to begin the re-analysis of the constitutionality of modern procedures that affect the jury trial right. Given the importance that these new procedures, including summary judgment, play in modern litigation, this Article argues that the Court should re-assess the constitutionality of the procedures in light of these principles and stare decisis.",
keywords = "Seventh Amendment",
author = "Thomas, {Suja A}",
year = "2004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "82",
pages = "687--754",
journal = "Washington University Law Quarterly",
issn = "0043-0862",
publisher = "Washington University in St. Louis",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Seventh Amendment, Modern Procedure and the English Common Law

AU - Thomas, Suja A

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Judges increasingly use procedural devices which preclude juries from deciding cases or which re-examine decisions by juries. Although the use of these procedures has become a controversial subject in scholarly debate, scholars generally have not questioned their constitutionality. The Seventh Amendment provides that facts tried by a jury may be re-examined only according to the rules of the common law, which the Supreme Court has held means the rules of the English common law in 1791. To determine then the constitutionality of new procedural devices, the Supreme Court has compared them to the procedures under the English common law. In its analyses, the Court has made significant errors, misinterpreting the English common law devices and making inaccurate comparisons of the English devices to the modern procedures. These missteps have led the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of the procedural devices by a vague standard unrelated to the actual characteristics of the English common law. This Article argues that ten principles can be derived from the English common law to begin the re-analysis of the constitutionality of modern procedures that affect the jury trial right. Given the importance that these new procedures, including summary judgment, play in modern litigation, this Article argues that the Court should re-assess the constitutionality of the procedures in light of these principles and stare decisis.

AB - Judges increasingly use procedural devices which preclude juries from deciding cases or which re-examine decisions by juries. Although the use of these procedures has become a controversial subject in scholarly debate, scholars generally have not questioned their constitutionality. The Seventh Amendment provides that facts tried by a jury may be re-examined only according to the rules of the common law, which the Supreme Court has held means the rules of the English common law in 1791. To determine then the constitutionality of new procedural devices, the Supreme Court has compared them to the procedures under the English common law. In its analyses, the Court has made significant errors, misinterpreting the English common law devices and making inaccurate comparisons of the English devices to the modern procedures. These missteps have led the Supreme Court to evaluate the constitutionality of the procedural devices by a vague standard unrelated to the actual characteristics of the English common law. This Article argues that ten principles can be derived from the English common law to begin the re-analysis of the constitutionality of modern procedures that affect the jury trial right. Given the importance that these new procedures, including summary judgment, play in modern litigation, this Article argues that the Court should re-assess the constitutionality of the procedures in light of these principles and stare decisis.

KW - Seventh Amendment

M3 - Article

VL - 82

SP - 687

EP - 754

JO - Washington University Law Quarterly

JF - Washington University Law Quarterly

SN - 0043-0862

IS - 3

ER -