Просмотр кода страницы Английская Википедия:Common law

{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}}
{{Short description|Law created by judicial precedent}}
{{distinguish|text=[[Jus commune]]}}[[File:Map of the Legal systems of the world (en).png|thumb|Legal systems of the world.<ref>[http://www.juriglobe.ca/eng/syst-onu/index-alpha.php Alphabetical Index of the 192 United Nations Member States and Corresponding Legal Systems] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722022209/http://www.juriglobe.ca/eng/syst-onu/index-alpha.php |date=22 July 2016 }}, Website of the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa</ref> Common law countries are in several shades of pink, corresponding to variations in common law systems. [[Civil law (legal system)|Civil law]] countries, the most prevalent system in the world, are in shades of blue.|325x325px]]{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}In law, '''common law''' (also known as judicial '''precedent''', judge-made law, or [[case law]]) is the body of law created by [[judge]]s and similar quasi-judicial [[tribunals]] by virtue of being stated in written opinions.<ref name="GarnerUsageDef0">{{cite book |title = A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage |url = https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0 |url-access = registration |last = Garner |first= Bryan A. |orig-year = 1995| year = 2001 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] |location = New York |edition = 2nd, revised |page=[https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0/page/177 177]| isbn = 9780195077698 |quote = In modern usage, ''common law'' is contrasted with a number of other terms. First, in denoting the body of judge-made law based on that developed in England... [P]erhaps most commonly within Anglo-American jurisdictions, ''common law'' is contrasted with ''statutory law'' ... }}</ref><ref name="Blacks10thDef1">{{cite book |title=Black's Law Dictionary – Common law |date=2014 |edition=10th |page=334 |quote=1. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; [synonym] CASE LAW [contrast to] STATUTORY LAW.}}</ref><ref name="HolmesSouthernPacificBrooding">"The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law.  The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer.</ref>

The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as [[precedent]]. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. ''[[Stare decisis]]'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.<ref>Karl Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals at 77–87, Little, Brown, Boston MA (1960)</ref> If a court finds that a similar dispute to the present one has been resolved in the past, the court is generally bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision. If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (a "[[Case of first impression|matter of first impression]]"), and [[Statute|legislative statutes]] (also called "positive law") are either silent or ambiguous on the question, judges have the authority and duty to resolve the issue.<ref>''Marbury v. Madison'', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=5&page=137 5 U.S. 137] (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.")</ref> The [[legal opinion|opinion]] that a common law judge gives agglomerates with past decisions as [[precedent]] to bind future judges and litigants, unless overturned by further developments in the law or by subsequent statutory law.

The common law, so named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across England, originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries following the [[Norman Conquest]] in 1066.{{sfnp|Langbein|Lerner|Smith|2009|p=4}} The [[British Empire]] later spread the English legal system to its colonies, many of which retain the common law system today. These common law systems are [[Legal systems of the world|legal systems]] that give great weight to judicial precedent, and to the style of reasoning inherited from the [[English law#Common law|English]] legal system.<ref name="Blacks10thDef2">{{cite book |title=Black's Law Dictionary – Common law |date=2014 |edition=10th |page=334 |quote=2. The body of law based on the English legal system, as distinct from a ''civil-law system''; the general Anglo-American system of legal concepts, together with the techniques of applying them, that form the basis of the law in jurisdictions where the system applies...}}</ref><ref name="GarnerUsageDef1">{{cite book |last=Garner |first=Bryan A. |url=https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0 |title=A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2001 |isbn=9780195077698 |edition=2nd, revised |location=New York |quote="common law" is contrasted by comparative jurists to civil law. |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>Washington Probate, "Estate Planning & Probate Glossary", ''Washington (State) Probate'', [http://www.wa-probate.com/Intro/Estate-Probate-Glossary.htm s.v. "common law"] {{Webarchive|url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20170525183721/http://www.wa-probate.com/Intro/Estate-Probate-Glossary.htm|date=25 May 2017}}, 8 December 2008:, retrieved on 7 November 2009. "2. The system of law originated and developed in England and based on prior court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than codified written law. Contrast: CIVIL LAW."</ref><ref name=":1">Charles Arnold-Baker, ''The Companion to British History'', s.v. "English Law" (London: Loncross Denholm Press, 2008), 484.</ref>

The term "common law", referring to the body of law made by the [[judiciary]],<ref name="HolmesSouthernPacificBrooding" /><ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions">{{cite journal |last=Carpenter |first=Charles E. |year=1917 |title=Court Decisions and the Common Law |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=17 |issue=7 |pages=593–607 |doi=10.2307/1112172 |jstor=1112172}} (common law court "decisions are themselves law, or rather the rules which the courts lay down in making the decisions constitute law.")</ref> is often distinguished from [[statutory law]] and [[regulation]]s, which are laws adopted by the [[legislature]] and [[Executive (government)|executive]] respectively. In legal systems that follow the common law, judicial precedent stands in contrast to and on equal footing with [[statute law|statutes]]. The other major legal system used by countries is the [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]], which codifies its legal principles into [[Code of law|legal codes]] and does not treat judicial opinions as binding.

Today, one-third of the world's population lives in common law jurisdictions or in [[List of national legal systems|mixed legal systems]] that combine the common law with the civil law, including<ref>JuriGlobe, ''Alphabetical Index of the 192 United Nations Member States and Corresponding Legal Systems''[http://www.juriglobe.ca/eng/syst-onu/index-alpha.php] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722022209/http://www.juriglobe.ca/eng/syst-onu/index-alpha.php|date=22 July 2016}}</ref> Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://w3.uniroma1.it/idc/centro/publications/43finn.pdf |title=The Common Law in the World: the Australian Experience |publisher=W3.uniroma1.it |access-date=30 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727131223/http://w3.uniroma1.it/idc/centro/publications/43finn.pdf |archive-date=27 July 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>Liam Boyle, ''An Australian August Corpus: Why There is Only One Common Law in Australia'', (2015) Bond Law Review, Volume 27.[http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=blr] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170731080002/http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=blr|date=31 July 2017}}</ref>  Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.barbadosparliament.com/the_parliament.php |title=Parliament of Barbados: one of the oldest Constitutions in the Commonwealth |access-date=6 November 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111122095917/http://www.barbadosparliament.com/the_parliament.php |archive-date=22 November 2011 }}</ref> Belize, Botswana, Burma, Cameroon, Canada (both the [[#CL Canada federal|federal]] system and all its [[#CL Canada provinces|provinces]] except Quebec), [[Law of Cyprus|Cyprus]], Dominica, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Hong Kong, [[#CL India|India]], Ireland, [[#CL Israel|Israel]], Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, [[Law of Malta|Malta]], Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, [[#CL Pakistan|Pakistan]], Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, [[#CL Roman Dutch|South Africa]], Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom (including its [[British overseas territories|overseas territories]] such as Gibraltar), the [[Law of the United States#American common law|United States]] (both the [[#United States federal courts (1789 and 1938)|federal system]] and [[#Louisiana (1700s)|49 of its 50 states]]), and Zimbabwe.

== Definitions ==
The term ''common law'' has several connotations.

=== Source of law ===
The first definition of "common law" given in ''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]'', 10th edition, 2014, is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions".''Black's'' lists "case law" as a synonym, and "statute" as a contrast.<ref name="BlacksLawDict">{{cite book|title=Black's Law Dictionary – Common law|date=2014|edition=10th|page=334}}</ref> Common law is sometimes explained by contrasting it with other terms; in modern usage, most commonly with [[Common_law#Comparison_with_statutory_law|statutory law]].<ref name="GarnerUsageDef0" /><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Brudney |first1=James |last2=Baum |first2=Lawrence |date=November 2013 |title=Oasis or Mirage: The Supreme Court's Thirst for Dictionaries in the Rehnquist and Roberts Eras |url=https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3503&context=wmlr |access-date=February 2, 2024}}</ref> This definition of "common law" distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law, or the [[sources of law|source]] of the law.<ref name="salmond32">{{harvnb|Salmond|1907|p=32}}</ref>

=== Jurisdictional ===
The is the second definition from ''Black's Law Dictionary'', 10th ed,  contrasts the "common law" jurisdictions  from "[[civil law (legal system)|civil law]]" or "[[Codification (law)|code]]" jurisdictions.<ref name="GarnerUsageDef1"/>  This connotation of common law is "the body of law based on the English legal system...together with the techniques of applying them, that form the basis of the law" that has developed under different circumstances from country to country so that the judge-made common law of different countries may have variations based on local usages.<ref name="BlacksLawDict"/> 

=== Law as opposed to equity {{Anchor|3. Law as opposed to equity}} ===
''Black's Law Dictionary'', 10th ed., definition 4, differentiates "common law" (or just "law") from "[[equity (law)|equity]]".<ref name="Blacks10thDef4">{{cite book|title=Black's Law Dictionary – Common law|date=2014|edition=10th|page=334|quote=4. The body of law derived from law courts as opposed to those sitting in equity.}}</ref><ref name="salmond32" /><ref name="GarnerUsageDef2">{{cite book | title = A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage | url = https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0 | url-access = registration | last = Garner | first= Bryan A. | year = 2001 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | location = New York | edition = 2nd, revised |page=[https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0/page/177 177]| isbn = 9780195077698 |quote=Second, with the development of equity and equitable rights and remedies, ''common law'' and equitable courts, procedure, rights, and remedies, etc., are frequently contrasted, and in this sense ''common law'' is distinguished from ''equity.''}}</ref> Before 1873, [[England and Wales|England]] had two complementary court systems: courts of "law" which could only award [[Monetary damages|money damages]] and recognized only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" ([[courts of chancery]]) that could issue [[injunction|injunctive relief]] (that is, a [[court order]] to a party to do something, give something to someone, or stop doing something) and recognized [[trust (law)|trusts]] of property. This split propagated to many of the colonies, including the United States. The states of Delaware, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee continue to have divided Courts of Law and Courts of Chancery. In New Jersey, the appellate courts are unified, but the trial courts are organized into a Chancery Division and a Law Division. There is a difference of opinion in Commonwealth countries as to whether equity and common law have been fused or are merely administered by the same court, with the orthodox view that they have not (expressed as rejecting the "fusion fallacy") prevailing in Australia,<ref>{{Cite AustLII|litigants=Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd|source=NSWCA|num=10|year=2003|parallelcite=(2003) 56 NSWLR 298, 306 (Spigelman CJ), 325–9 (Mason P, dissenting), 391–2 (Heydon JA)|pinpoint=[21]–[27] (Spigelman CJ), [132]–[178] (Mason P, dissenting), [353] (Heydon JA)}}</ref> while support for fusion has been expressed by the [[New Zealand Court of Appeal]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tilbury |first=Michael |date=2003 |title=Fallacy or Furphy?: Fusion in a Judicature World |url=https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/26-2-8.pdf |journal=UNSW Law Journal |volume=26 |issue=2}}</ref>

For most purposes, the U.S. federal system and most states have merged the two courts.<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule2.htm Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 2] ("There is one form of action—the civil action.") (1938)</ref><ref name="friedmanxix">{{harvnb|Friedman|2005|p=xix}}</ref>

=== Archaic or obsolete definitions ===

In addition, there are several historical (but now archaic) uses of the term that, while no longer current, provide background context that assists in understanding the meaning of "common law" today. In one usage that is now archaic, but that gives insight into the history of the common law, "common law" referred to the pre-Christian system of law, imported by the pre-literate Saxons to England and upheld into their historical times until 1066, when the [[Norman conquest of England|Norman conquest]] overthrew the last Saxon king—i.e., before (it was supposed) there was any consistent, written law to be applied.<ref name="JeffersonToCooper">One example of this usage is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper. {{cite web|last=Jefferson|first=Thomas|title=Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper|url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html|access-date=11 July 2012|date=10 February 1814|quote=Authorities for what is common law may therefore be as well cited, as for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no better instance of the necessity of holding the judges and writers to a declaration of their authorities than the present; where we detect them endeavoring to make law where they found none, and to submit us at one stroke to a whole system, no particle of which has its foundation in the common law. For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Carta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.|archive-date=15 June 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120615015406/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=JeffersonToCartwright>Another example of this usage is in another letter of Jefferson, to John Cartright.{{cite web|last=Jefferson|first=Thomas|title=Letter To Major John Cartwright|url=http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/cartwright.html|access-date=11 July 2012|date=5 June 1824|quote=I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.}}</ref>

The term "judge-made law" was first coined by [[Jeremy Bentham]] as a rebuttal of the dominant [[declaratory theory of common law]]. According to writers like [[William Blackstone]], and through the late 19th century, the dominant theory was that the authority of the common law was derived from the customs of the people that had existed since antiquity.<ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions" /><ref name="Blacks10thDefRemoved"/>  The common law was pre-existing; judge's weren't making new laws, but only expounding and applying the old.<ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions" />  This definition of common law as an ancient, unwritten law was included in some 18th and 19th century dictionaries including ''[[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]]'' and ''[[Black's Law Dictionary]]''.<ref name="Blacks10thDefRemoved">{{cite book|title=Black's Law Dictionary – Common law|date=2014|edition=10th|page=334 |quote="the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action ... which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England"}}</ref> 

By the early 20th century, largely at the urging of [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.|Oliver Wendell Holmes]], this view had fallen into the minority view: Holmes pointed out that the older view worked undesirable and unjust results, and hampered a proper development of the law.<ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions" /> Modern versions of Black's Law Dictionary no longer include this definition. In the century since Holmes, the dominant understanding has been that common law "decisions are themselves law, or rather the rules which the courts lay down in making the decisions constitute law".<ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions" /> Holmes wrote in a 1917 opinion, "The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi-sovereign that can be identified."<ref name="HolmesSouthernPacificBrooding" /> 

"Common law" as the term is used today in common law countries contrasts with {{lang|la|[[ius commune]]}}. While historically the {{lang|la|ius commune}} became a secure point of reference in continental European legal systems, in England it was not a point of reference at all.<ref name="Ius Commune' p.20">[[David John Ibbetson]], ''Common Law and Ius Commune'' p. 20 (2001) {{ISBN|978-0-85423-165-2}}</ref>

The English [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]] dealt with lawsuits in which the monarch had no interest, i.e., between commoners.

''Black's Law Dictionary'', 10th ed., definition 3 is "General law common to a country as a whole, as opposed to special law that has only local application."<ref name="Blacks10th">{{cite book|title=Black's Law Dictionary – Common law|date=2014|edition=10th|page=334}}</ref> From at least the 11th century and continuing for several centuries, there were several different circuits in the royal court system, served by [[Circuit court|itinerant judges]] who would travel from town to town dispensing the king's justice in "[[assize]]s". The term "common law" was used to describe the law held in common between the circuits and the different stops in each circuit.<ref name="Blacks10th" /> The more widely a particular law was recognized, the more weight it held, whereas purely local customs were generally subordinate to law recognized in a plurality of jurisdictions.<ref name="Blacks10th" />

== Basic principles of common law ==

=== Common law adjudication ===

In a common law jurisdiction several stages of research and analysis are required to determine "what the law is" in a given situation.<ref>Jane Kent Gionfriddo, Thinking Like a Lawyer: The Heuristics of Case Synthesis, 40 Texas Tech. L.Rev. 1 (Sep. 2007) [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012220] [https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp/207]</ref> First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. More recent decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts.<ref>''e.g.'', ''Ex parte Holt'', 19 USPQ2d 1211, 1214 (Bd. Patent App. & Interf. 1991) (explaining the hierarchy of precedent binding on tribunals of the United States Patent Office)</ref> Finally, one integrates all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determines "what the law is". Then, one applies that law to the facts.

In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the simplified 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 lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, [[constitutional law]], [[statutory law]] and [[Regulation (law)|regulatory law]] also give rise to considerable complexity.

=== Common law evolves to meet changing social needs and improved understanding {{anchor|CL_Common_Law_Evolves}} ===
{{Original research section|date=February 2024}}
[[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]] cautioned that "the proper derivation of general principles in both common and constitutional law ... arise gradually, in the emergence of a consensus from a multitude of particularized prior decisions".<ref>Frederic R. Kellog, Law, Morals, and Justice Holmes, 69 Judicature 214 (1986).</ref> [[Benjamin Cardozo|Justice Cardozo]] noted the "common law does not work from pre-established truths of universal and inflexible validity to conclusions derived from them deductively", but "[i]ts method is inductive, and it draws its generalizations from particulars".<ref>Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 22–23 (1921).</ref>

The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and [[social philosophy]]. Second, the common law evolves through a series of [[incrementalism|gradual steps]], that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects.<ref>The beneficial qualities of the common law's incrementalist evolution was most eloquently expressed by the future [[Lord Mansfield]], then Solicitor General Murray, in the case of ''Omychund v. Barker'', who contended that "a statute very seldom can take in all cases; therefore the common law, that works itself pure by rules drawn from the fountain of justice, is for that reason superior to an [[Act of Parliament|act of parliament]]". I Atk. 21, 33, 26 Eng. Rep. 15, 22–23 (Ch. 1744)</ref> In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is  intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).{{cn|date=February 2024}}

One example of the gradual change that typifies evolution of the common law is the gradual change in liability for negligence. The traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligent production or distribution of a harmful instrumentality unless the two were parties to a contract ([[privity of contract]]). Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for a product defect, and if a part was built up out of parts from parts manufacturers, the ultimate buyer could not recover for injury caused by a defect in the part. In an 1842 English case, ''[[Winterbottom v Wright]]'',<ref>''Winterbottom v. Wright'', 10 M&W 109, 152 Eng.Rep. 402, 1842 WL 5519 (Exchequer of pleas 1842)</ref> the postal service had contracted with Wright to maintain its coaches. Winterbottom was a driver for the post. When the coach failed and injured Winterbottom, he sued Wright. The ''Winterbottom'' court recognized that there would be "absurd and outrageous consequences" if an injured person could sue any person peripherally involved, and knew it had to draw a line somewhere, a limit on the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury. The court looked to the contractual relationships, and held that liability would only flow as far as the person in immediate contract ("privity") with the negligent party.

A first exception to this rule arose in 1852, in the case of ''[[Thomas v. Winchester]]'',<ref>[http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/thomas_winchester.htm ''Thomas v. Winchester''], 6 N.Y. 397 (N.Y. 1852)</ref> when New York's highest court held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put "human life in imminent danger". ''Thomas'' relied on this reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule. In 1909, New York held in ''Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co.''<ref>''Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co.'', 195 N.Y. 478, 480 (N.Y. 1909)</ref> that a coffee urn manufacturer was liable to a person injured when the urn exploded, because the urn "was of such a character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed".

Yet the privity rule survived. In ''Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson''<ref>''Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson'', 221 F. 801 (2nd Cir. 1915)</ref> (decided in 1915 by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner had a contract only with the automobile dealer and not with the manufacturer, even though there was "no question that the wheel was made of dead and 'dozy' wood, quite insufficient for its purposes". The ''Cadillac'' court was willing to acknowledge that the case law supported exceptions for "an article dangerous in its nature or likely to become so in the course of the ordinary usage to be contemplated by the vendor". However, held the ''Cadillac'' court, "one who manufactures articles dangerous only if defectively made, or installed, e.g., tables, chairs, pictures or mirrors hung on the walls, carriages, automobiles, and so on, is not liable to third parties for injuries caused by them, except in case of willful injury or fraud".

Finally, in the famous case of ''[[MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.]]'',<ref>[http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/macpherson_buick.htm ''MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.''], 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916)</ref> in 1916, [[Benjamin Cardozo|Judge Benjamin Cardozo]] for New York's highest court pulled a broader principle out of these predecessor cases. The facts were almost identical to ''Cadillac'' a year earlier: a wheel from a wheel manufacturer was sold to Buick, to a dealer, to MacPherson, and the wheel failed, injuring MacPherson. Judge Cardozo held:

{{Blockquote|It may be that ''Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co.'' have extended the rule of ''Thomas v. Winchester''. If so, this court is committed to the extension. The defendant argues that things imminently dangerous to life are poisons, explosives, deadly weapons—things whose normal function it is to injure or destroy. But whatever the rule in ''Thomas v. Winchester'' may once have been, it has no longer that restricted meaning. A scaffold (''Devlin v. Smith'', supra) is not inherently a destructive instrument. It becomes destructive only if imperfectly constructed. A large coffee urn (''Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co.'', supra) may have within itself, if negligently made, the potency of danger, yet no one thinks of it as an implement whose normal function is destruction. What is true of the coffee urn is equally true of bottles of aerated water (''Torgesen v. Schultz'', 192 N. Y. 156). We have mentioned only cases in this court. But the rule has received a like extension in our courts of intermediate appeal. In ''Burke v. Ireland'' (26 App. Div. 487), in an opinion by CULLEN, J., it was applied to a builder who constructed a defective building; in ''Kahner v. Otis Elevator Co.'' (96 App. Div. 169) to the manufacturer of an elevator; in ''Davies v. Pelham Hod Elevating Co.'' (65 Hun, 573; affirmed in this court without opinion, 146 N. Y. 363) to a contractor who furnished a defective rope with knowledge of the purpose for which the rope was to be used. We are not required at this time either to approve or to disapprove the application of the rule that was made in these cases. It is enough that they help to characterize the trend of judicial thought.

We hold, then, that the principle of ''Thomas v. Winchester'' is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. ... There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable.}}

Cardozo's new "rule" exists in no prior case, but is inferrable as a synthesis of the "thing of danger" principle stated in them, merely extending it to "foreseeable danger" even if "the purposes for which it was designed" were not themselves "a source of great danger". ''MacPherson'' takes some care to present itself as foreseeable progression, not a wild departure. Cardozo continues to adhere to the original principle of ''[[Winterbottom v. Wright|Winterbottom]]'', that "absurd and outrageous consequences" must be avoided, and he does so by drawing a new line in the last sentence quoted above: "There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable." But while adhering to the underlying principle that ''some'' boundary is necessary, ''[[MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.|MacPherson]]'' overruled the prior common law by rendering the formerly dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the privity formality arising out of a contractual relationship between persons, totally irrelevant. Rather, the most important factor in the boundary would be the nature of the thing sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream purchasers would make of the thing.

The example of the evolution of the law of negligence in the preceding paragraphs illustrates two crucial principles: (a) The common law evolves, this evolution is in the hands of judges, and judges have "made law" for hundreds of years.<ref name="SpeiserLawOfTorts" /> (b) The [[ratio decidendi|reasons given for a decision]] are often more important in the long run than the outcome in a particular case. This is the reason that judicial opinions are usually quite long, and give rationales and policies that can be balanced with judgment in future cases, rather than the bright-line rules usually embodied in statutes.

=== Publication of decisions ===

All law systems rely on written publication of the law,<ref name="BostonSocialLawCommonOrCivil" /> so that it is accessible to all. Common law decisions are published in [[law reports]] for use by lawyers, courts and the general public.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=148|title=Legal Dictionary – Law.com|work=Law.com Legal Dictionary}}</ref>

After the American Revolution, Massachusetts became the first state to establish an official Reporter of Decisions. As newer states needed law, they often looked first to the Massachusetts Reports for authoritative precedents as a basis for their own common law.<ref name="BostonSocialLawCommonOrCivil">Social Law Library, ''Common Law or Civil Code?'', Boston, Massachusetts.</ref> The United States federal courts relied on private publishers until after the Civil War, and only began publishing as a government function [[United States Reports#history|in 1874]]. [[West (publisher)|West Publishing in Minnesota]] is the largest private-sector publisher of law reports in the United States. Government publishers typically issue only decisions "in the raw", while private sector publishers often add indexing, including references to the key principles of the common law involved, editorial analysis, and similar finding aids.

=== Comparison with statutory law ===

Statutes are generally understood to supersede common law. They may [[Codification (law)|codify]] existing common law, create new [[causes of action]] that did not exist in the common law,{{efn|''Hadley v Baxendale'' (1854) 9 Exch 341 (defining a new rule of contract law with no basis in statute);  ''MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.'', 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916) (adjudicating the tort of negligence that existed in no statute, and expanding the law to cover parties that had never been addressed by statute)}} or legislatively overrule the common law. Common law still has practical applications in some areas of law. Examples are [[contract law]]<ref>E. Allen Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts, §&nbsp;1.7, Aspen (2004) (although certain fields of contract law have been modified by statute, "judicial decisions [remain] the dominant primary source of contract law.")</ref> and the [[law of torts]].<ref name="SpeiserLawOfTorts">Stuart Speiser, et al., The American Law of Torts, §§&nbsp;1:2, 1:5, and 1:6, Thomson Reuters (2013) (describing common law development of tort law in England and the United States, and the "little reluctance [of courts] to overrule (or disapprove statements in) decisions in tort law either now deemed wrong or inadvisedly considered" and disinclination toward any contention that change must be by legislation).</ref>  

===="Legislating from the bench"====

At earlier stages in the development of modern legal systems and government, courts exercised their authority in performing what [[Roscoe Pound]] described as an essentially legislative function. As legislation became more comprehensive, courts began to operate within narrower limits of [[statutory interpretation]].<ref name=popkin/><ref name=interpretation>{{cite journal |last1=Pound |first1=Roscoe |title=Spurious Interpretation |journal=Columbia Law Review |date=1907 |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=381 |quote=The object of genuine interpretation is to discover the rule which the law-maker intended to establish; to discover the intention with which the law-maker made the rule, or the sense which he attached to the words wherein the rule is expressed...the object of spurious interpretation is to make, unmake, or remake, and not merely to discover...it is essentially a legislative, not a judicial process, made necessary in formative periods by the paucity of principles, feebleness of legislation and rigidity of rules characteristic of archaic law. So long as law is regarded as sacred, or for any reason as incapable of alteration, such a process is necessary for growth, but surviving into periods of legislation, it becomes a source of confusion.}}</ref>

[[Jeremy Bentham]] famously criticized judicial lawmaking when he argued in favor of codification and narrow judicial decisions. Pound comments that critics of judicial lawmaking are not always consistent - sometimes siding with Bentham and decrying judicial overreach, at other times unsatisfied with judicial reluctance to sweep broadly and employ case law as a means to redress certain challenges to established law.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pound |first1=Roscoe |title=What of Stare Decisis? |journal=Fordham Law Review |date=1941 |volume=10 |issue=1}}</ref> [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.|Oliver Wendell Holmes]] once dissented: "judges do and must legislate".<ref>''Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 221 (1917) (Holmes, J., dissenting).</ref>

====Statutory construction====

There is a controversial legal maxim in American law that "[[Derogation#Common_law|Statutes in derogation of the common law ought to be narrowly construed]]". [[Henry Campbell Black]] once wrote that the canon "no longer has any foundation in reason". It is generally associated with the [[Lochner era]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Popkin |first=William |title=Statutes in Court: The History and Theory of Statutory Interpretation |date=1999 |publisher=Duke University Press |page=97}}</ref> 

The presumption is that legislatures may take away common law rights, but modern jurisprudence will look for the statutory purpose or legislative intent and apply rules of statutory construction like the [[plain meaning rule]] to reach decisions.<ref name=popkin/> As the United States Supreme Court explained in ''United States v Texas'', 507 U.S. 529 (1993):{{primary inline|date=February 2024}}

{{blockquote |text=Just as longstanding is the principle that "[s]tatutes which invade the common law ... are to be read with a presumption favoring the retention of long-established and familiar principles, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident. ''Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson'', 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952); ''Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Solimino'', 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991). In such cases, Congress does not write upon a clean slate. ''Astoria'', 501 U.S. at 108. In order to abrogate a common-law principle, the statute must "speak directly" to the question addressed by the common law. ''Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham'', 436 U. S. 618, 625 (1978); ''Milwaukee v. Illinois'', 451 U. S. 304, 315 (1981).}}

As another example, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] in 1877,<ref>''Meister v. Moore'', 96 U.S. 76 (1877) ("No doubt a statute may take away a common law right, but there is always a presumption that the legislature has no such intention unless it be plainly expressed.")</ref> held that a [[Michigan]] statute that established rules for [[solemnization]] of marriages did not abolish pre-existing [[common-law marriage]], because the statute did not affirmatively require statutory solemnization and was silent as to preexisting common law.

Court decisions that analyze, interpret and determine the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies are sometimes called "interstitial common law," which includes judicial interpretation of fundamental laws, such as the [[US Constitution]], of legislative statutes, and of [[Regulation (law)|agency regulations]], and the application of law to specific facts.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Common Law – Atlas of Public Management |url=https://www.atlas101.ca/pm/concepts/common-law/ |access-date=2024-02-02 |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Overruling precedent—the limits of ''stare decisis'' ===
The [[#United States federal system (1789 and 1938)|United States federal courts]] are divided into twelve regional circuits, each with a [[United States courts of appeals|circuit court of appeals]] (plus a thirteenth, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals in patent cases and cases against the federal government, without geographic limitation). Decisions of one circuit court are binding on the district courts within the circuit and on the circuit court itself, but are only persuasive authority on sister circuits. District court decisions are not binding precedent at all, only persuasive.

Most of the U.S. federal courts of appeal have adopted a rule under which, in the event of any conflict in decisions of panels (most of the courts of appeal almost always sit in panels of three), the earlier panel decision is controlling, and a panel decision may only be overruled by the court of appeals sitting ''en banc'' (that is, all active judges of the court) or by a higher court.<ref>E.g., ''South Corp. v. United States'', 690 F.2d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (''en banc'' in relevant part) (explaining order of precedent binding on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit); ''Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama'', 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (''en banc'') (after the Eleventh Circuit was split off from the Fifth Circuit, adopting precedent of Fifth Circuit as binding until overruled by the Eleventh Circuit ''en banc'': "The [pre-split] Fifth followed the absolute rule that a prior decision of the circuit (panel or ''en banc'') could not be overruled by a panel but only by the court sitting ''en banc''. The Eleventh Circuit decides in this case that it chooses, and will follow, this rule."); ''Ex parte Holt'', 19 USPQ2d 1211, 1214 (Bd. Patent App. & Interf. 1991) (explaining the hierarchy of precedent binding on tribunals of the United States Patent Office).</ref> In these courts, the older decision remains controlling when an issue comes up the third time.

Other courts, for example, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Supreme Court, always sit ''en banc'', and thus the ''later'' decision controls. These courts essentially overrule all previous cases in each new case, and older cases survive only to the extent they do not conflict with newer cases. The interpretations of these courts—for example, Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution or federal statutes—are stable only so long as the older interpretation maintains the support of a majority of the court. Older decisions persist through some combination of belief that the old decision is right, and that it is not sufficiently wrong to be overruled.

In the jurisdictions of [[England and Wales]] and of [[Northern Ireland]], since 2009, the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]] has the authority to overrule and unify criminal law decisions of lower courts; it is the final court of appeal for civil law cases in all three of the UK jurisdictions, but not for criminal law cases in Scotland, where the [[High Court of Justiciary]] has this power instead (except on questions of law relating to reserved matters such as devolution and human rights). From 1966 to 2009, this power lay with the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]], granted by the Practice Statement of 1966.<ref>83 Cr App R 191, 73 Cr App R 266</ref>

Canada's federal system, described [[#CL Canada federal|below]], avoids regional variability of federal law by giving national jurisdiction to both layers of appellate courts.

=== Common law as a foundation for commercial economies ===

The reliance on judicial opinion is a strength of common law systems, and is a significant contributor to the robust commercial systems in the United Kingdom and United States. Because there is reasonably precise guidance on almost every issue, parties (especially commercial parties) can predict whether a proposed course of action is likely to be lawful or unlawful, and have some assurance of consistency.<ref name="LawGovPol">{{cite web| url = https://lawgovpol.com/common-law-advantages-disadvantages| title = LawGovPol, ''Common law: advantages and disadvantages''}}</ref> As [[Justice Brandeis]] famously expressed it, "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right."<ref>''Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.'', 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).</ref> This ability to predict gives more freedom to come close to the boundaries of the law.<ref>See, e.g., [[Yeo Tiong Min]], "[http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/SomeDifferences.html A Note on Some Differences in English Law, New York Law, and Singapore Law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070502093747/http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/SomeDifferences.html |date=2007-05-02 }}" (2006).</ref> For example, many commercial contracts are more economically efficient, and create greater wealth, because the parties know ahead of time that the proposed arrangement, though perhaps close to the line, is almost certainly legal. Newspapers, taxpayer-funded entities with some religious affiliation, and political parties can obtain fairly clear guidance on the boundaries within which their [[Freedom of speech|freedom of expression]] rights apply.

In contrast, in jurisdictions with very weak respect for precedent,<ref>For example, the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office|U.S. Patent Office]] issues very few of its decisions in precedential form. Kate Gaudry & Thomas Franklin, "Only one in 20,631 ''ex parte'' appeals designated precedential by PTAB", IPWatchdog (27 September 2015). Various lower tribunals in the Patent Office give very weak respect to earlier superior decisions.</ref> fine [[Question of law|questions of law]] are redetermined anew each time they arise, making consistency and prediction more difficult, and procedures far more protracted than necessary because parties cannot rely on written statements of law as reliable guides.<ref name=LawGovPol /> In jurisdictions that do not have a strong allegiance to a large body of precedent, parties have less ''a priori'' guidance (unless the written law is very clear and kept updated) and must often leave a bigger "safety margin" of unexploited opportunities, and final determinations are reached only after far larger expenditures on legal fees by the parties.

This is the reason<ref name="EisenbergMillerNewYork" /> for the frequent choice of the law of the State of New York in commercial contracts, even when neither entity has extensive contacts with New York—and remarkably often even when neither party has contacts with the United States.<ref name="EisenbergMillerNewYork">Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller (2008). [http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_lewp/124 ''The Flight to New York: An Empirical Study of Choice of Law and Choice of Forum Clauses in {{Sic|hide=y|Publicly|-}}Held Companies' Contracts'']. New York University Law and Economics Working Papers. Paper 124, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110401145941/http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_lewp/124/ |date=1 April 2011 }} (based on a survey of 2882 contracts, "New York law plays a role for major corporate contracts similar to the role Delaware law plays in the limited setting of corporate governance disputes. ... New York's dominance is striking. It is the choice of law in approximately 46 percent of contracts", and if merger contracts excluded, over half).</ref> Commercial contracts almost always include a "choice of law clause" to reduce uncertainty. Somewhat surprisingly, contracts throughout the world (for example, contracts involving parties in Japan, France and Germany, and from most of the other states of the United States) often choose the law of New York, even where the relationship of the parties and transaction to New York is quite attenuated. Because of its history as the United States' commercial center, New York common law has a depth and predictability not (yet) available in any other jurisdictions of the United States. Similarly, American corporations are often formed under Delaware [[Corporations law|corporate law]], and American contracts relating to corporate law issues ([[Mergers and acquisitions|merger and acquisitions]] of companies, rights of shareholders, and so on) include a Delaware [[choice of law]] clause, because of the deep body of law in Delaware on these issues.<ref>Eisenberg & Miller at 19–20 (Delaware is chosen in about 15% of contracts, "Delaware dominates for one type of contract—[merger] trust agreements. ... The dominance of Delaware for this specialized type of contract is apparently due to the advantages and flexibility which Delaware's business trust statute.")</ref> On the other hand, some other jurisdictions have sufficiently developed bodies of law so that parties have no real motivation to choose the law of a foreign jurisdiction (for example, England and Wales, and the state of California), but not yet so fully developed that parties with no relationship to the jurisdiction choose that law.<ref>Eisenberg & Miller at 19, only about 5% of commercial contracts designate California choice of law, where nearly 50% designate New York.</ref> Outside the United States, parties that are in different jurisdictions from each other often choose the law of England and Wales, particularly when the parties are each in former British colonies and members of the Commonwealth. The common theme in all cases is that commercial parties seek predictability and simplicity in their contractual relations, and frequently choose the law of a common law jurisdiction with a well-developed body of common law to achieve that result.

Likewise, for litigation of commercial disputes arising out of unpredictable torts (as opposed to the prospective choice of law clauses in contracts discussed in the previous paragraph), certain jurisdictions attract an unusually high fraction of cases, because of the predictability afforded by the depth of decided cases. For example, London is considered the pre-eminent centre for litigation of [[Admiralty law|admiralty]] cases.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-becomes-litigation-capital-of-the-world-1031231.html | location=London | work=The Independent | first=Richard | last=Osley | title=London becomes litigation capital of the world | date=23 November 2008}} London is also forum for many defamation cases, because UK law is more plaintiff-friendly—in the United States, the First Amendment protection for freedom of the press allows for statements concerning public figures of questionable veracity, where in the UK, those same statements support a judgment for libel. This relative weakness of protection for freedom of speech led the United States to limit enforcement of foreign (in particular, English) defamation judgements in the [[SPEECH Act]] of 2010, thus making England and Wales a less attractive forum for such cases.</ref>

This is not to say that common law is better in every situation. For example, civil law can be clearer than case law when the legislature has had the foresight and diligence to address the precise set of facts applicable to a particular situation. For that reason, civil law statutes tend to be somewhat more detailed than statutes written by common law legislatures—but, conversely, that tends to make the statute more difficult to read (the United States tax code is an example).<ref>{{cite web |publisher=U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Taxpayer Advocate Service |title=2008 Report to Congress |url=https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/08_tas_arc_msp_1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130228060230/http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/08_tas_arc_msp_1.pdf <!--also:|archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/08_tas_arc_msp_1.pdf -->|archive-date=2013-02-28 |url-status=live |date=28 February 2013 }}</ref>

== History ==
{{See also|English law}}

=== Origins ===
The common law{{mdash}}so named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across England{{mdash}}originated in the practices of the courts of the English kings in the centuries following the [[Norman Conquest]] in 1066.{{sfnp|Langbein|Lerner|Smith|2009|p=4}}  Prior to the Norman Conquest, much of England's legal business took place in the local folk courts of its various [[shires]] and [[Hundred (county division)|hundreds]].{{sfnp|Langbein|Lerner|Smith|2009|p=4}}  A variety of other individual courts also existed across the land: urban boroughs and merchant fairs held their own courts, and large landholders also held their own manorial and seigniorial courts as needed.{{sfnp|Langbein|Lerner|Smith|2009|p=4}} The degree to which common law drew from earlier [[Anglo-Saxon kingdoms|Anglo-Saxon]] traditions such as the [[jury]], [[ordeals]], the penalty of [[outlawry]], and [[writs]] {{ndash}} all of which were incorporated into the Norman common law {{ndash}} is still a subject of much discussion. Additionally, the [[Catholic Church]] operated its own court system that adjudicated issues of [[Canon law of the Catholic Church|canon law]].{{sfnp|Langbein|Lerner|Smith|2009|p=4}}

The main sources for the history of the common law in the Middle Ages are the [[plea rolls]] and the [[Year Books]]. The plea rolls, which were the official court records for the Courts of Common Pleas and King's Bench, were written in Latin. The rolls were made up in bundles by law term: Hilary, Easter, Trinity, and Michaelmas, or winter, spring, summer, and autumn. They are currently deposited in [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|the UK National Archives]], by whose permission images of the rolls for the Courts of Common Pleas, King's Bench, and Exchequer of Pleas, from the 13th century to the 17th, can be viewed online at the Anglo-American Legal Tradition site (The O'Quinn Law Library of the University of Houston Law Center).<ref>Documents from Medieval and Early Modern England from the National Archives in London.[http://aalt.law.uh.edu/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306122827/http://aalt.law.uh.edu/|date=6 March 2016}}  Publications of the [[Selden Society]] include a Year Books series and other volumes transcribing and translating the original manuscripts of early common law cases and law reports, each volume having its editor's scholarly introduction. [http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/selden_society/pub.html Publications of the Selden Society]</ref><ref>One history of the law before the Norman Conquest is [[Sir Frederick Pollock, 1st Baronet|Pollock]] and [[Frederic William Maitland|Maitland]], ''The History of English Law before the Time of [[Edward I]]'', .[https://archive.org/details/historyofenglish00polluoft]</ref>

The doctrine of precedent developed during the 12th and 13th centuries,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Jeffery |first=Clarence Ray |year=1957 |title=The Development of Crime in Early English Society |journal=Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science |volume=47 |issue=6 |pages=647–666|doi=10.2307/1140057 |jstor= 1140057 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol47/iss6/2 }}</ref> as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, [[custom (law)|custom]] and [[precedent]].<ref>Winston Churchill, ''A History of the English Speaking Peoples'', Chapter 13, ''The English Common Law''</ref>

The form of reasoning used in common law is known as [[casuistry]] or [[case-based reasoning]]. The common law, as applied in [[civil case]]s (as distinct from [[criminal case]]s), was devised as a means of [[damages|compensating]] someone for wrongful acts known as [[tort]]s, including both [[intentional tort]]s and torts caused by [[negligence]], and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating [[contract]]s. The type of [[legal procedure|procedure]] practiced in common law courts is known as the [[adversarial system]]; this is also a development of the common law.

=== Medieval English common law ===
[[File:Microcosm of London Plate 094 - Westminster Hall edited.jpg|thumb|A view of [[Westminster Hall]] in the [[Palace of Westminster]], [[London]], early 19th century]]

In 1154, [[Henry II of England|Henry II]] became the first [[Plantagenet]] king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a [[jury]] system—citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its [[verdict]] through evaluating common [[Traditional knowledge|local knowledge]], not necessarily through the presentation of [[evidence (law)|evidence]], a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.

At the time, royal government centered on the ''[[Curia regis|Curia Regis]]'' (king's court), the body of aristocrats and prelates who assisted in the administration of the realm and the ancestor of [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]], the [[Star Chamber]], and [[Privy Council of the United Kingdom|Privy Council]]. Henry II developed the practice of sending judges (numbering around 20 to 30 in the 1180s) from his Curia Regis to hear the various disputes throughout the country, and return to the court thereafter.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Baker|first=John|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198812609.001.0001/oso-9780198812609|title=Introduction to English Legal History|date=2019-03-21|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-881260-9|edition=5|language=en|doi=10.1093/oso/9780198812609.001.0001}}</ref> The king's itinerant justices would generally receive a [[writ]] or commission under the great seal.<ref name=":0" /> They would then resolve disputes on an [[ad hoc]] basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as ''stare decisis'' (also commonly known as precedent) developed, whereby a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. Once judges began to regard each other's decisions to be binding precedent, the pre-Norman system of local customs and law varying in each locality was replaced by a system that was (at least in theory, though not always in practice) common throughout the whole country, hence the name "common law".

The king's object was to preserve public order, but providing law and order was also extremely profitable–cases on forest use as well as fines and forfeitures can generate "great treasure" for the government.<ref>''Croniques de London'' (Camden Soc., 1844), pp. 28–9.</ref><ref name=":0" /> Eyres (a Norman French word for judicial circuit, originating from Latin ''iter'') are more than just courts; they would supervise local government, raise revenue, investigate crimes, and enforce feudal rights of the king.<ref name=":0" /> There were complaints of the ''eyre'' of 1198 reducing the kingdom to poverty<ref>''Chronica Rogeri de Houedene'' (RS, 1871), IV, p. 62.</ref> and Cornishmen fleeing to escape the eyre of 1233.<ref>''Annales Monastici'' (RS, 1864–69), III, p. 135.</ref>

Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of [[canon law|canonical]] (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously with [[Thomas Becket]], the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. The murder of the archbishop gave rise to a wave of popular outrage against the King. International pressure on Henry grew, and in May 1172 he negotiated a [[Compromise of Avranches|settlement with the papacy]] in which the King swore to go on crusade as well as effectively overturned the more controversial clauses of the [[Constitutions of Clarendon]]. Henry nevertheless continued to exert influence in any ecclesiastical case which interested him and royal power was exercised more subtly with considerable success.

The English [[Court of Common Pleas (England)|Court of Common Pleas]] was established after [[Magna Carta]] to try lawsuits between commoners in which the monarch had no interest. Its judges sat in open court in the Great Hall of the king's [[Palace of Westminster#Westminster Hall|Palace of Westminster]], permanently except in the vacations between the four terms of the [[Legal year]].

Judge-made common law operated as the primary source of law for several hundred years, before [[Parliament of England|Parliament]] acquired legislative powers to create [[statutory law]]. In England, judges have devised a number of rules as to [[Mechanisms of the English common law|how to deal with precedent decisions]]. The early development of case-law in the thirteenth century has been traced to [[Henry de Bracton|Bracton]]'s ''On the Laws and Customs of England'' and led to the yearly compilations of court cases known as [[Year Books]], of which the first extant was published in 1268, the same year that Bracton died.<ref>[[Theodore Plucknett|T. F. T. Plucknett]], ''A Concise History of the Common Law, 5th edition, 1956, London and Boston, pp.260–261''</ref> The Year Books are known as the law reports of medieval England, and are a principal source for knowledge of the developing legal doctrines, concepts, and methods in the period from the 13th to the 16th centuries, when the common law developed into recognizable form.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty-scholarship/legal-history-the-year-books/| title = BUSL, ''Legal History: The Year Books''}}</ref><ref>Cambridge History of English and American Literature ''The Year Books and their Value''[http://www.bartleby.com/218/1309.html]</ref>

=== Influence of Roman law ===
The term "common law" is often used as a contrast to Roman-derived "civil law", and the fundamental processes and forms of reasoning in the two are quite different. Nonetheless, there has been considerable cross-fertilization of ideas, while the two traditions and sets of foundational principles remain distinct.

By the time of the rediscovery of the [[Roman law]] in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, the common law had already developed far enough to prevent a Roman law reception as it occurred on the continent.<ref>E.g., R. C. van Caenegem, ''The Birth of the English Common Law'' 89–92 (1988).</ref> However, the first common law scholars, most notably [[Ranulf de Glanvill|Glanvill]] and [[Henry de Bracton|Bracton]], as well as the early royal common law judges, had been well accustomed with Roman law. Often, they were clerics trained in the Roman canon law.<ref>E.g., [[Peter Birks]], Grant McLeod, ''Justinian's Institutes'' 7 (1987).</ref> One of the first and throughout its history one of the most significant treatises of the common law, Bracton's ''De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae'' (On the Laws and Customs of England), was heavily influenced by the division of the law in Justinian's ''[[Corpus Juris Civilis|Institutes]]''.<ref>E.g., George E. Woodbine (ed.), [[Samuel E. Thorne]] (transl.), ''Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England'', Vol. I (Introduction) 46 (1968); Carl Güterbock, ''Bracton and his Relation to the Roman Law'' 35–38 (1866).</ref> The impact of Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into ''[[in rem]]'' (typically, actions against a ''thing'' or property for the purpose of gaining title to that property; must be filed in a court where the property is located) and ''[[in personam]]'' (typically, actions directed against a person; these can affect a person's rights and, since a person often owns things, his property too) used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th centuries. Signs of this can be found in Blackstone's ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'',<ref>Stephen P. Buhofer, ''Structuring the Law: The Common Law and the Roman Institutional System'', Swiss Review of International and European Law (SZIER/RSDIE) 5/2007, 24.</ref> and Roman law ideas regained importance with the revival of academic law schools in the 19th century.<ref>Peter Stein, ''Continental Influences on English Legal thought, 1600–1900'', ''in'' Peter Stein, ''The Character and Influence of the Roman Civil Law'' 223 ''et seq''. (1988).</ref> As a result, today, the main systematic divisions of the law into property, contract, and tort (and to some extent [[unjust enrichment]]) can be found in the civil law as well as in the common law.<ref>See generally Stephen P. Buhofer, ''Structuring the Law: The Common Law and the Roman Institutional System'', Swiss Review of International and European Law (SZIER/RSDIE) 5/2007.</ref>

===Early modern era===

The "ancient unwritten universal custom" view was the foundation of the first treatises by Blackstone and Coke, and was universal among lawyers and judges from the earliest times to the mid-19th century.<ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions" />  However, for 100 years, lawyers and judges have recognized that the "ancient unwritten universal custom" view does not accord with the facts of the origin and growth of the law.<ref name="CarpenterColumbiaCourtDecisions" /> 

West's encyclopedia of American law, defines common law as "The ancient law of England based upon societal customs and recognized and enforced by the judgments and decrees of the courts."<ref name=WestEnc>{{cite book |last1=Lehman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Phelps |first2=Shirelle |title=West's encyclopedia of American law, Volume 3 |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson/Gale |location=Detroit |isbn=9780787663704 |page=30 |edition=2nd |mode=cs2<!--to fit this into a sentence-->}}</ref>

=== Coke ===

The first attempt at a comprehensive compilation of centuries of common law was by Lord Chief Justice [[Edward Coke]], in his treatise, ''[[Institutes of the Lawes of England]]'' in the 17th century.

As Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634) put it in the preface to the eighth volume of his ''Reports'' (1600–1615), 'the grounds of our common laws' were 'beyond the memorie or register of any beginning.{{'"}}<ref>James R. Stoner, Jr., [http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/common-law ''Common Law and the Law of Reason''] ([https://faculty.lsu.edu/poston/index.php Stoner] is a professor of political science, not law)</ref>

=== Blackstone ===

According to [[William Blackstone]] the unwritten law derived its authority from immemorial usage and 'universal reception throughout the kingdom'<ref>Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780) in his ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1765–1769)</ref><ref name=congress>Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the ... Congress. United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, p 15876</ref> While it's precise meaning may have changed since Blackstone's time, in modern usage it is generally understood to mean law that is independent of statutes. This was repeated by the United States Supreme Court in ''Levy v. McCartee'': "It is too plain for argument that the common law is here spoken of, in its appropriate sense, as the unwritten law of the land, independent of statutory enactments".<ref name=congress/> 

More specifically, in modern usage, this is understood to mean law that is made by judges, not the [[declaratory statutes]] of Blackstone's era.<ref name=interpretation /><ref>Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780), ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' (1765–1769): "Statutes are either declaratory of the common law, or remedial of some defects therein. Declaratory, where the old custom of the kingdom is almost fallen into disuse, or become disreputable; remedial when made to supply such defects, and abridge such superfluities, in the common law, as arise either from the general imperfection of all human laws, from change of time and circumstances, from the mistakes and unadvised determinations of unlearned (or even learned) judges, or from any other cause whatsoever.</ref> 

=== Jeremy Bentham ===
The term "judge made law" comes from Jeremy Bentham and the modern practice of adjudication as application of precedent derived from case law begins with Jeremy Bentham's attack on the legitimacy of the common law. The modern legal practice of applying case law as precedent obsoleted the declaratory theory of common law that prevailed in Blackstone's time.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gearey |first1=Adam |last2=Morrison |first2=Wayne |last3=Jago |first3=Robert |title=The Politics of the Common Law: Perspectives, Rights, Processes, Institutions |date=2013 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |page=115}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Postema |first1=Gerald |title=Bentham and the Common Law Tradition |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/35287/chapter-abstract/299899893?redirectedFrom=fulltext |doi=10.1093/oso/9780198793052.003.0006}}</ref>

=== Propagation of the common law to the colonies and Commonwealth by reception statutes ===

{{anchor|CL_Reception_Statutes}}A [[reception statute]] is a statutory law adopted as a former British colony becomes independent, by which the new nation adopts (i.e. receives) pre-independence common law, to the extent not explicitly rejected by the [[legislative body]] or [[constitution]] of the new nation. Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedent originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state. All U.S. states, with the partial exception of [[#Louisiana (1700s)|Louisiana]], have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion.<ref>Edited [https://books.google.com/books?id=wl3KFBnC0P0C Thinking like a lawyer: an introduction to legal reasoning]{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} (Westview Press, 1996), pg. 10</ref>

Other examples of reception statutes in the United States, the states of the U.S., Canada and its provinces, and Hong Kong, are discussed in the [[reception statute]] article.

Yet, adoption of the common law in the newly independent nation was not a foregone conclusion, and was controversial. Immediately after the American Revolution, there was widespread distrust and hostility to anything British, and the common law was no exception.<ref name=BostonSocialLawCommonOrCivil /> Jeffersonians decried lawyers and their common law tradition as threats to the new republic. The Jeffersonians preferred a legislatively enacted civil law under the control of the political process, rather than the common law developed by judges that—by design—were insulated from the political process. The Federalists believed that the common law was the birthright of Independence: after all, the natural rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were the rights protected by common law. Even advocates for the common law approach noted that it was not an ideal fit for the newly independent colonies: judges and lawyers alike were severely hindered by a lack of printed legal materials. Before Independence, the most comprehensive law libraries had been maintained by Tory lawyers, and those libraries vanished with the loyalist expatriation, and the ability to print books was limited. Lawyer (later President) John Adams complained that he "suffered very much for the want of books". To bootstrap this most basic need of a common law system—knowable, written law—in 1803, lawyers in Massachusetts donated their books to found a law library.<ref name=BostonSocialLawCommonOrCivil />  A Jeffersonian newspaper criticized the library, as it would carry forward "all the old authorities practiced in England for centuries back ... whereby a new system of jurisprudence [will be founded] on the high monarchical system [to] become the Common Law of this Commonwealth... [The library] may hereafter have a very unsocial purpose."<ref name=BostonSocialLawCommonOrCivil />

For several decades after independence, English law still exerted influence over American common law—for example, with ''[[Byrne v Boadle]]'' (1863), which first applied the [[res ipsa loquitur]] doctrine.

=== Decline of Latin maxims and "blind imitation of the past", and adding flexibility to ''stare decisis'' {{Anchor|History_and_Holmes}} ===
Well into the 19th century, ancient maxims played a large role in common law adjudication. Many of these maxims had originated in Roman Law, migrated to England before the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles, and were typically stated in Latin even in English decisions. Many examples are familiar in everyday speech even today, "[[Nemo iudex in causa sua|One cannot be a judge in one's own cause]]" (see [[Dr. Bonham's Case]]), rights are reciprocal to obligations, and the like. Judicial decisions and treatises of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as those of Lord Chief Justice [[Edward Coke]], presented the common law as a collection of such maxims.

Reliance on old maxims and rigid adherence to precedent, no matter how old or ill-considered, came under critical discussion in the late 19th century, starting in the United States. [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]] in his famous article, "The Path of the Law",<ref>{{cite journal|volume=10 |journal=Harvard Law Review |pages=457–478 |year=1897|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2373|title=The Path of the Law|first=Oliver Wendell Jr. |last=Holmes|doi=10.2307/1322028|issue=8|jstor=1322028 }}</ref> commented, "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." Justice Holmes noted that study of maxims might be sufficient for "the man of the present", but "the man of the future is the man of statistics and the master of economics". In an 1880 lecture at Harvard, he wrote:<ref>[[The Common Law (Holmes)|The Common Law]] {{cite web| url = https://archive.org/details/commonlaw00holmuoft| title = O. W. Holmes, Jr., ''The Common Law''| year = 1882}}</ref>

{{blockquote|The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the [[:w:syllogism|syllogism]] in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the [[:w:axiom|axioms]] and corollaries of a book of mathematics.}}

In the early 20th century, [[Louis Brandeis]], later appointed to the United States Supreme Court, became noted for his use of policy-driving facts and economics in [[Brandeis Brief|his briefs]], and extensive appendices presenting facts that lead a judge to the advocate's conclusion. By this time, briefs relied more on facts than on Latin maxims.

Reliance on old maxims is now deprecated.<ref>''Acree v. Republic of Iraq'', 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring).</ref> Common law decisions today reflect both precedent and policy judgment drawn from economics, the social sciences, business, decisions of foreign courts, and the like.<ref>Foreign influence over American law is not new; only the controversy.  For example, in ''The Western Maid'', 257 U.S. 419, 432 (1922), Justice Holmes wrote "When a case is said to be governed by foreign law or by general maritime law that is only a short way of saying that for this purpose the sovereign power takes up a rule suggested from without and makes it part of its own rules," and adopted a rule from without to decide the case.</ref> The degree to which these external factors ''should'' influence adjudication is the subject of active debate, but it is indisputable that judges ''do'' draw on experience and learning from everyday life, from other fields, and from other jurisdictions.<ref>[[Roper v. Simmons]], 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (holding unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18, based on "evolving standards of decency", largely based on other nations' law)</ref>

=== 1870 through 20th century, and the procedural merger of law and equity ===
<!-- "Fusion of law and equity" redirects here. Please edit redirect if changing the name of this section header -->
As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at [[#Law as opposed to equity|common law (as opposed to equity)]]) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of [[Equity (law)|equity]], administered by the [[Lord Chancellor]], in the courts of [[Court of equity|chancery]]. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other,<ref>{{harvnb|Salmond|1907|p=34}}</ref> even though it was established by the 17th century that equity should prevail.

In England, courts of law (as opposed to equity) were merged with [[Court of equity|courts of equity]] by the [[Judicature Acts]] of 1873 and 1875, with equity prevailing in case of conflict.<ref>Lobban, Michael "Preparing for Fusion: Reforming the Nineteenth-Century Court of Chancery, Part II | year=2004 | work=Law and History Review, 2004 (University of Illinois Press) . {{ISSN|0738-2480}}.</ref>

In the United States, parallel systems of [[#Disambiguate equity|law]] (providing money [[damages]], with cases heard by a jury upon either party's request) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation, including injunctive relief, heard by a judge) survived well into the 20th century. The [[United States federal courts]] procedurally separated law and equity: the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity, and the two kinds of cases proceeded under different procedural rules. This became problematic when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. In 1937, the new [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] combined [[#Disambiguate equity|law]] and equity into one form of action, the "civil action". Fed.R.Civ.P. {{frcp|2}}. The distinction survives to the extent that issues that were "common law (as opposed to equity)" as of 1791 (the date of adoption of the [[Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Seventh Amendment]]) are still subject to the right of either party to request a jury, and "equity" issues are decided by a judge.<ref>E.g., ''Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.'', 517 U.S. 370, 376 (1996) ("[W]e [the U.S. Supreme Court] have understood that the right of trial by jury thus preserved is the right which existed under the English [[#Disambiguate equity|common law (as opposed to equity)]] when the Amendment was adopted. In keeping with our longstanding adherence to this 'historical test', we ask, first, whether we are dealing with a cause of action that either was tried at [[#Disambiguate equity|law (as opposed to equity)]] at the time of the founding or is at least analogous to one that was. If the action in question belongs in the law category, we then ask whether the particular trial decision must fall to the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791." (citations and quotations omitted, holding that interpretation of the scope of a patent had no analogy in 1790, and is thus a question to be decided by a judge, not a jury)</ref>

The states of Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee continue to have divided courts of law and courts of chancery, for example, the [[Delaware Court of Chancery]]. In New Jersey, the appellate courts are unified, but the trial courts are organized into a Chancery Division and a Law Division.

=== Common law pleading and its abolition in the early 20th century ===

For centuries, through to the 19th century, the common law acknowledged only specific [[Form of action|forms of action]], and required very careful drafting of the opening pleading (called a [[writ]]) to slot into exactly one of them: [[debt]], [[detinue]], [[covenant (law)|covenant]], special [[assumpsit]], general assumpsit, [[trespass]], [[trover]], [[replevin]], case (or [[trespass on the case]]), and [[ejectment]].<ref>F. W. Maitland, ''The Forms of Action at Common Law'', 1909, [https://legacy.fordham.edu/Halsall/basis/maitland-formsofaction.asp Lecture I], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160622144219/http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/maitland-formsofaction.asp |date=22 June 2016 }} or John Jay McKelvey, Principles of Common Law Pleading (1894) or [[James Barr Ames|Ames]], [[Joseph Chitty|Chitty]], [[Henry John Stephen|Stephen]], [[James Bradley Thayer|Thayer]] and other writers named in the preface of Perry's [http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/commonlawpleadin00perr.pdf ''Common-law Pleading: its history and principles''] (Boston, 1897) or Koffler and Reppy, 1969, [https://kateofgaia.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/handbook-of-common-law-pleadings1.pdf ''Handbook of Common Law Pleading'']</ref> To initiate a lawsuit, a pleading had to be drafted to meet myriad technical requirements: correctly categorizing the case into the correct legal pigeonhole (pleading in the alternative was not permitted), and using specific legal terms and phrases that had been traditional for centuries. Under the old common law pleading standards, a suit by a ''pro se'' ("for oneself", without a lawyer) party was all but impossible, and there was often considerable procedural jousting at the outset of a case over minor wording issues.

One of the major reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century was the abolition of common law pleading requirements.<ref>The remainder of the "common law" discussed in the rest of the article remained intact; all that was abolished were the highly technical requirements for language of the paper provided by the plaintiff to the defendant to initiate a case.</ref> A plaintiff can initiate a case by giving the defendant "a short and plain statement" of facts that constitute an alleged wrong.<ref>E.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 4, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief".</ref> This reform moved the attention of courts from technical scrutiny of words to a more rational consideration of the facts, and opened access to justice far more broadly.<ref>E.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, civil procedure rules "should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding".</ref>

== Alternatives to common law systems ==

=== Civil law systems ===
{{main|Civil law (legal system)}}

[[File:Corpus Iuris Civilis 02.jpg|thumb|A 16th century edition of ''Corpus Juris Civilis Romani'' (1583)]]

The main alternative to the common law system is the [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] system, which is used in [[Continental Europe]], and most of [[Central America|Central]] and [[South America]]. 

Common law systems trace their history to England, while civil law systems trace their history through the Napoleonic Code back to the {{lang|la|[[Corpus Juris Civilis]]}} of [[Roman law]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.radford.edu/~junnever/law/commonlaw.htm|title=Description and History of Common Law|access-date=14 March 2017|archive-date=28 February 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228123015/http://www.radford.edu/~junnever/law/commonlaw.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html|title=The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions|access-date=11 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160422031516/https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html|archive-date=22 April 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>  A few Western countries use other legal traditions, such as [[Roman-Dutch law]] or [[Scots law]], for example.

==== Role of precedent ====
The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent.<ref name=LawGovPol />
While Common law systems place great weight on precedent, <ref>It is characteristic of the common law to adopt an approach based "on precedent, and on the development of the law incrementally and by analogy with established authorities". {{cite BAILII |litigants=Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police |year=2018 |court=UKSC |num=4 |pinpoint=para. 21}}</ref> civil law judges tend to give less weight to judicial precedent.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Garoupa |first1=Nuno |last2=Liguerre |first2=Carlos Gomez |title=The Syndrome of the Efficiency of the Common Law |journal=Boston University International Law Journal |date=2011 |volume=29 |page=298}}</ref> For example, the [[Napoleonic Code]] expressly forbade French judges to pronounce general principles of law.<ref>"5. The judges are forbidden to pronounce, by way of general and legislative determination, on the causes submitted to them." [http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/code/book1/c_preliminary.html ''Code of Napoleon'', Decree of March 5, 1803, Law 5]</ref>{{primary inline|date=February 2024}} 

In common law jurisdictions, the legal reasoning for the decision, known as ''[[ratio decidendi]]'', not only determines the court's judgment between the parties, but also stands as precedent for resolving future disputes. In contrast, civil law decisions typically do not include explanatory opinions, and thus no precedent flows from one decision to the next.<ref>Potter, H. Law, Liberty and the Constitution: A Brief History of the common Law (2018)</ref> In civil law jurisdictions is filled by giving greater weight to scholarly literature, as explained [[#CL academic writings|below]].

In civil law jurisdictions courts lack authority to act if there is no statute. For that reason, statutes in civil law systems are more comprehensive, detailed, and continuously updated, covering all matters capable of being brought before a court.<ref>''The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions'', Robbins Collection, University of California at Berkeley.[https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160422031516/https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html|date=22 April 2016}}</ref>

==== Adversarial system vs. inquisitorial system ====
[[#Disambiguate civil law|Common law systems]] tend to give more weight to separation of powers between the judicial branch and the executive branch. In contrast, civil law systems are typically more tolerant of allowing individual officials to exercise both powers.  One example of this contrast is the difference between the two systems in allocation of responsibility between prosecutor and adjudicator.<ref name="LawteacherInquisitorialAdversarial">{{cite web|url=https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/inquisitorial-and-adversarial-system-of-law-constitutional-law-essay.php|title=Inquisitorial And Adversarial System Of Law|website=lawteacher.net}}</ref><ref name="PortsmouthAdversarialInquisitory">{{cite web|url=http://compass.port.ac.uk/UoP/file/c7ffec37-0632-475f-84ba-ae018a2f0f38/1/Types_of_law_IMSLRN.zip/page_10.htm|title=Types of Legal System: Adversarial v. Investigatory Trial Systems|last=LangstoT|website=compass.port.ac.uk|access-date=17 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171125130415/http://compass.port.ac.uk/UoP/file/c7ffec37-0632-475f-84ba-ae018a2f0f38/1/Types_of_law_IMSLRN.zip/page_10.htm|archive-date=25 November 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Common law courts usually use an [[adversarial system]], in which two sides present their cases to a neutral judge.<ref name="LawteacherInquisitorialAdversarial" /><ref name="PortsmouthAdversarialInquisitory" />  For example, in criminal cases, in adversarial systems, the prosecutor and adjudicator are two separate people.  The prosecutor is lodged in the executive branch, and conducts the investigation to locate evidence.  That prosecutor presents the evidence to a neutral adjudicator, who makes a decision.

In contrast,  in [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems, criminal proceedings proceed under an [[inquisitorial system]] in which an examining magistrate serves two roles by first developing the evidence and arguments for one side and then the other during the investigation phase.<ref name="LawteacherInquisitorialAdversarial" /><ref name="PortsmouthAdversarialInquisitory" />  The examining magistrate then presents the dossier detailing his or her findings to the president of the bench that will adjudicate on the case where it has been decided that a trial shall be conducted. Therefore, the president of the bench's view of the case is not neutral and may be biased while conducting the trial after the reading of the dossier.{{Citation needed|date=December 2023|reason=Should be a source that demonstrates judges are biased}} Unlike the common law proceedings, the president of the bench in the inquisitorial system is not merely an umpire and is entitled to directly interview the witnesses or express comments during the trial, as long as he or she does not express his or her view on the guilt of the accused.

The proceeding in the inquisitorial system is essentially by writing. Most of the witnesses would have given evidence in the investigation phase and such evidence will be contained in the dossier under the form of police reports. In the same way, the accused would have already put his or her case at the investigation phase but he or she will be free to change his or her evidence at trial. Whether the accused pleads guilty or not, a trial will be conducted. Unlike the adversarial system, the conviction and sentence to be served (if any) will be released by the trial jury together with the president of the trial bench, following their common deliberation.

{{anchor|Principle of party presentation}}
In contrast, in an adversarial system, on issues of fact, the onus of framing the case rests on the parties, and judges generally decide the case presented to them, rather than acting as active investigators, or actively reframing the issues presented.  "In our adversary system, in both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal, we follow the principle of party presentation. That is, we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present."<ref>United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19–67 (7 May 2020)</ref>  This principle applies with force in all issues in criminal matters, and to factual issues: courts seldom engage in fact gathering on their own initiative, but decide facts on the evidence presented (even here, there are exceptions, for "legislative facts" as opposed to "adjudicative facts").

On the other hand, on issues of law, common law courts regularly raise new issues (such as matters of jurisdiction or standing), perform independent research, and reformulate the legal grounds on which to analyze the facts presented to them.  The United States Supreme Court regularly decides based on issues raised only in [[amicus brief]]s from non-parties.  One of the most notable such cases was ''[[Erie Railroad v. Tompkins]]'', a 1938 case in which neither party questioned the ruling from the 1842 case ''[[Swift v. Tyson]]'' that served as the foundation for their arguments, but which led the Supreme Court to overturn ''Swift'' during their deliberations.<ref name="duke party presentation">{{cite journal | title = The Limits of Advocacy | first = Amanda | last = Frost | date = 2009 | journal = Duke Law Journal | volume= 59 | issue =3 | pages = 447–518 | url = https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=facsch_lawrev }}</ref>  To avoid lack of notice, courts may invite briefing on an issue to ensure adequate notice.<ref>the appendix to the ''Sineneng-Smith'' opinion gives an extensive catalog of cases in which the Court permissibly sought outside briefing.</ref>  However, there are limits—an appeals court may not introduce a theory that contradicts the party's own contentions.<ref>See ''[[Greenlaw v. United States]]'' and ''[[United States v. Sineneng-Smith]]''</ref>

There are many exceptions in both directions. For example, most proceedings before U.S. federal and state agencies are inquisitorial in nature, at least the initial stages (''e.g.'', a patent examiner, a social security hearing officer, and so on), even though the law to be applied is developed through common law processes.

==== Contrasting role of treatises and academic writings in common law and civil law systems{{anchor|CL academic writings}} ====
The role of the legal academy presents a significant "cultural" difference between common law ([[#Disambiguate civil law|connotation 2]]) and [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions.  In both systems, treatises compile decisions and state overarching principles that (in the author's opinion) explain the results of the cases.  In neither system are treatises considered "law", but the weight given them is nonetheless quite different.

In common law jurisdictions, lawyers and judges tend to use these [[treatises]] as only "finding aids" to locate the relevant cases. In common law jurisdictions, scholarly work is seldom cited as authority for what the law is.<ref>At least in the U.S., practicing lawyers tend to use "law professor" or "law review article" as a pejorative to describe a person or work that is insufficiently grounded in reality or practicality—every young lawyer is admonished repeatedly by senior lawyers not to write "law review articles," but instead to focus on the facts of the case and the practical effects of a given outcome.</ref>  Chief Justice Roberts noted the "great disconnect between the academy and the profession."<ref>A Conversation with Chief Justice Roberts, 11 June 2011 [https://www.c-span.org/video/?300203-1/conversation-chief-justice-roberts] at 30:30.</ref> When common law courts rely on scholarly work, it is almost always only for factual findings, policy justification, or the [[Legal history|history and evolution of the law]], but the court's legal conclusion is reached through analysis of relevant statutes and common law, seldom scholarly commentary.

In contrast, in [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions, courts give the writings of [[law school|law professors]] significant weight, partly because civil law decisions traditionally were very brief, sometimes no more than a paragraph stating who wins and who loses. The rationale had to come from somewhere else: the academy often filled that role.

==== Narrowing of differences between common law and civil law ====
The contrast between civil law and common law legal systems has become increasingly blurred, with the growing importance of [[jurisprudence]] (similar to [[case law]] but not binding) in civil law countries, and the growing importance of [[code law|statute law and codes]] in common law countries.

Examples of common law being replaced by statute or codified rule in the United States include [[Common law offence#United States|criminal law]] (since 1812,<ref name="USvHudson">[[United States v. Hudson and Goodwin|''United States v. Hudson'']], {{ussc|11|32|1812}}</ref> U.S. federal courts and most but not all of the states have held that criminal law must be embodied in statute if the public is to have fair notice), [[commercial law]] (the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] in the early 1960s) and procedure (the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] in the 1930s and the [[Federal Rules of Evidence]] in the 1970s). But in each case, the statute sets the general principles, but the [[#Disambiguate statute|interstitial common law]] process determines the scope and application of the statute.

An example of convergence from the other direction is shown in the 1982 decision ''Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health'' ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:1982:335}}), in which the [[European Court of Justice]] held that questions it has already answered need not be resubmitted. This showed how a historically distinctly common law principle is used by a court composed of judges (at that time) of essentially civil law jurisdiction.

=== Other alternatives ===

The former [[Soviet Bloc]] and other socialist countries used a [[socialist law]] system, although there is controversy as to whether socialist law ever constituted a separate legal system or not.<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=840224|pages=781–808|last1=Quigley|first1=J.|title=Socialist Law and the Civil Law Tradition|volume=37|issue=4|journal=The American Journal of Comparative Law|year=1989|doi=10.2307/840224}}</ref>

Much of the [[Muslim world]] uses legal systems based on [[Sharia]] (also called [[Sharia|Islamic law]]).

Many churches use a system of [[canon law]]. The [[canon law of the Catholic Church]] influenced the common law during the medieval period<ref>Friedman, Lawrence M., ''American Law: An Introduction'' (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984), pg. 70.</ref> through its preservation of [[Roman law]] doctrine such as the [[presumption of innocence]].<ref>William Wirt Howe, ''Studies in the Civil Law, and its Relation to the Law of England and America'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1896), pg. 51.<br />"In one of his elaborate orations in the United States Senate Mr. Charles Sumner spoke of "the generous presumption of the common law in favor of the innocence of an accused person;" yet it must be admitted that such a presumption cannot be found in Anglo-Saxon law, where sometimes the presumption seems to have been the other way. And in a very recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of Coffin, 156 U. S. 432, it is pointed out that this presumption was fully established in the Roman law, and was preserved in the canon law."</ref>

== Common law legal systems in the present day ==
=== In jurisdictions around the world ===
The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of:
* [[Law of Australia|Australia]] (both [[Australian Government|federally]] and in each of the [[States and territories of Australia|states and territories]])
* [[Law of Bangladesh|Bangladesh]]
* [[Belize]]
* Brunei
* Canada (both [[#CL Canada federal|federal]] and the [[#CL Canada provinces|individual provinces]], with the exception of [[Quebec law|Quebec]])
* the Caribbean jurisdictions of [[Laws of Antigua and Barbuda|Antigua and Barbuda]], Barbados, [[Law of the Bahamas|Bahamas]], Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago
* [[Law of Cyprus|Cyprus]]
* Ghana
* [[Law of Hong Kong|Hong Kong]]
* [[#CL India|India]]
* [[Law of the Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]
* [[#CL Israel|Israel]]
* Kenya
* [[Law of Nigeria|Nigeria]]
* [[Law of Malaysia|Malaysia]]
* [[Law of Malta|Malta]]
* Myanmar
* [[Law of New Zealand|New Zealand]]
* [[#CL Pakistan|Pakistan]]
* [[Philippine legal codes|Philippines]]
* [[Law of Singapore|Singapore]]
* [[Law of South Africa|South Africa]]
* [[Law of the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] (in [[English law|England]], [[Scots law|Scotland]], [[Welsh law|Wales]], and [[Northern Ireland law|Northern Ireland]])
* United States (both the [[#CL United States federal|federal]] system and the individual [[#CL United States|states]] and [[Territories of the United States|Territories]], with the partial exception of [[Law of Louisiana|Louisiana]] and [[Law of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rico]])

and many other generally [[English-speaking countries]] or [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries (except [[#CL Scotland|Scotland]], which is [[bijuridicial law|bijuridicial]], and [[Malta]]). Essentially, every country that was colonised at some time by England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom uses common law except those that were formerly colonised by other nations, such as [[Law of Quebec|Quebec]] (which follows the [[Napoleonic Code|bijuridicial law or civil code]] of France in part), South Africa and Sri Lanka (which follow [[#CL Roman Dutch|Roman Dutch law]]), where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the [[civil rights]] of the local colonists. Guyana and Saint Lucia have mixed common law and civil law systems.

The remainder of this section discusses jurisdiction-specific variants, arranged chronologically.

=== Scotland{{anchor|CL Scotland}} ===
[[Scotland]] is often said to use the civil law system, but it has [[Scots law|a unique system]] that combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the {{Lang|la|[[Corpus Juris Civilis]]}} with an element of its own common law long predating the [[Act of Union (1707)|Treaty of Union]] with England in 1707 (see [[Legal institutions of Scotland in the High Middle Ages]]), founded on the customary laws of the tribes residing there. Historically, [[Scots Law|Scottish common law]] differed in that the use of ''precedent'' was subject to the courts' seeking to discover the principle that justifies a law rather than searching for an example as a ''precedent'',<ref>Stair Memorial Encyclopedia</ref> and principles of [[natural justice]] and fairness have always played a role in Scots Law. From the 19th century, the Scottish approach to precedent developed into a ''stare decisis'' akin to that already established in England thereby reflecting a narrower, more modern approach to the application of case law in subsequent instances. This is not to say that the substantive rules of the common laws of both countries are the same, but in many matters (particularly those of UK-wide interest), they are similar.

Scotland shares the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] with England, Wales and Northern Ireland for civil cases; the court's decisions are binding on the jurisdiction from which a case arises but only influential on similar cases arising in Scotland. This has had the effect of converging the law in certain areas. For instance, the modern UK [[negligence|law of negligence]] is based on ''[[Donoghue v Stevenson]]'', a case originating in [[Paisley, Renfrewshire|Paisley, Scotland]].

Scotland maintains a separate criminal law system from the rest of the UK, with the [[High Court of Justiciary]] being the final court for criminal appeals. The highest court of appeal in civil cases brought in Scotland is now the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]] (before October 2009, final appellate jurisdiction lay with the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]]).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html|title=Role of The Supreme Court – The Supreme Court|first=The Supreme|last=Court|website=www.supremecourt.uk}}</ref>

=== The United States – its states, federal courts, and executive branch agencies (17th century on){{anchor|CL United States}} ===

==== New York (17th century)====
The original colony of [[New Netherland]] was settled by the Dutch and the law was also Dutch. When the English captured pre-existing colonies they continued to allow the local settlers to keep their civil law. However, the Dutch settlers revolted against the English and the colony was [[Second Anglo-Dutch War|recaptured]] by the Dutch. In 1664, the colony of [[New York (state)|New York]] had two distinct legal systems: on Manhattan Island and along the Hudson River, sophisticated courts modeled on those of the [[Dutch colonization of the Americas|Netherlands]] were resolving disputes learnedly in accordance with Dutch customary law. On Long Island, Staten Island, and in Westchester, on the other hand, English courts were administering a crude, untechnical variant of the common law carried from Puritan New England and practiced without the intercession of lawyers.<ref>William Nelson, Legal Turmoil in a Factious Colony: New York, 1664–1776, 38 Hofstra L. Rev. 69 (2009).</ref>  When the English finally regained control of New Netherland they imposed common law upon all the colonists, including the Dutch. This was problematic, as the [[patroon]] system of land holding, based on the [[Feudalism|feudal system]] and civil law, continued to operate in the colony until it was abolished in the mid-19th century. New York began a [[Codification (law)|codification]] of its law in the 19th century. The only part of this codification process that was considered complete is known as the [[Field Code]] applying to [[civil procedure]].  The influence of [[Roman-Dutch law]] continued in the colony well into the late 19th century. The codification of a law of general obligations shows how remnants of the civil law tradition in New York continued on from the Dutch days.

==== Louisiana (1700s){{anchor|Louisiana (1700s)}} ====

Under [[Law of Louisiana|Louisiana's codified system]], the [[Louisiana Civil Code]], private law—that is, [[substantive law]] between private sector parties—is based on principles of law from continental Europe, with some common law influences. These principles derive ultimately from [[Roman law]], transmitted through [[Law of France|French law]] and [[Law of Spain|Spanish law]], as the state's current territory intersects the area of North America colonized by Spain and by France. Contrary to popular belief, the Louisiana code does not directly derive from the [[Napoleonic Code]], as the latter was enacted in 1804, one year after the [[Louisiana Purchase]]. However, the two codes are similar in many respects due to common roots.

Louisiana's [[criminal law]] largely rests on English common law. Louisiana's [[administrative law]] is generally similar to the [[administrative Procedure Act (United States)|administrative law of the U.S. federal government]] and other U.S. states. Louisiana's [[procedural law]] is generally in line with that of other U.S. states, which in turn is generally based on the U.S. [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]].

Historically notable among the Louisiana code's differences from common law is the role of property rights among women, particularly in inheritance gained by widows.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1319&context=gradschool_disstheses| title = Sara Jane Sandberg, ''Women and the Law of Property Under Louisiana Civil Law, 1782–1835'' (2001)}}</ref>

==== California (1850s) ====
The [[U.S. state]] of [[California]] has a system based on common law, but it has [[Codification (law)|codified]] the law in the manner of [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the [[California Codes]] in the 19th century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other [[Western United States|Western states]], however, have retained the concept of [[community property]] derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case ''[[Li v. Yellow Cab Co.]]'', 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the [[California Supreme Court]] adopted the principle of [[comparative negligence]] in the face of a [[California Civil Code]] provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of [[contributory negligence]].)

==== United States federal courts (1789 and 1938) ====
{{see|Federal common law}}
[[File:Uscatitle11.jpg|thumb|USCA: some annotated volumes of the [[United States Code|official compilation]] and codification of federal statutes.]]

After ''[[Erie v. Tompkins]]'', 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938) overruled [[Joseph Storey]]'s decision in ''[[Swift v. Tyson]]'', the [[federal common law]] was limited to some jurisdictions stated in the Constitution, such as admiralty, and possibly some areas that may not be the traditional jurisdiction of state law.<ref>''Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins'', 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938) ("There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or ‘general,’ be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts.").</ref> 
Later courts have limited ''Erie'' slightly, to create a few situations where [[United States federal courts]] are permitted to create [[federal common law]] rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, such as foreign affairs, or financial instruments issued by the federal government.{{efn|''See, e.g.'', ''[[Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States]]'', {{ussc|318|363|1943}} (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case [[negotiable instrument]]s backed by the federal government); ''[[International News Service v. Associated Press]]'', 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding)}} Except on Constitutional issues, and some procedural issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law.<ref>''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'', 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (invalidating the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]], in which Congress had attempted to redefine the court's jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues); ''[[Milwaukee v. Illinois]]'', 451 U.S. 304 (1981)</ref>

In ''Swift'', the [[United States Supreme Court]] had held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their [[diversity jurisdiction]] (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law. ''Erie'' overruled ''Swift v. Tyson'', and instead held that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same [[substantive law]] as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the ''Erie'' Court put it, there is no "general federal common law". 

Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.{{efn|But see ''National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc.'', 105 F.3d 841, 843–44, 853 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting continued vitality of ''INS'' "hot news" tort under New York state law, but leaving open the question of whether it survives under federal law)}} Outside diversity jurisdiction and when there is no federal statute,{{efn|In the words of Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]]: "Federal common law implements the federal Constitution and statutes, and is conditioned by them."<ref>D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 US 447, 472 (1942), Jackson, J., concurring. Cited in Bradley, Curtis A. ''International Law in the U.S. Legal System.'' United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2015, 157</ref>}} post-Erie federal courts have continued to create causes of action.<ref>{{cite book |title=Ristau's International Judicial Assistance: A Practitioner's Guide to International Civil and Commercial Litigation |date=2021 |publisher=Oxford University Press|page=134}}</ref> Justice [[Lewis F. Powell Jr.|Lewis Powell]] strongly objected to this practice in an influential dissent for the case ''[[Cannon v. University of Chicago]]''.<ref name=popkin>{{cite book |last1=Popkin |first1=William D. |title=Statutes in Court: The History and Theory of Statutory Interpretation |date=1999 |publisher=Duke University Press |page=254 |quote=There is an old principle of law that every right has a remedy, which comes from an age when statutes often did little more than identify a legal wrong, leaving it to the common law to supply a remedy. But the courts extended this approach to infer a private cause of action even when the statute already provided specific (often administrative) remedies. The Court has recently retreated from an expansive inference of private remedies, first adopting a [[Cause_of_action#Statutory_causes_of_action|four part test]] which imposed some limits on inferring a private cause of action, and then shifting to legislative intent test...Justice Lewis Powell put it most forthrightly in his dissent in ''Cannon v. University of Chicago'' where he stated that the Article III judicial power did not include the power to imply private causes of action from silent statutes.}}</ref>

==== United States executive branch agencies (1946) ====
Most executive branch agencies in the United States federal government have some adjudicatory authority. To greater or lesser extent, agencies honor their own precedent to ensure consistent results. Agency decision making is governed by the [[Administrative Procedure Act (United States)|Administrative Procedure Act]] of 1946.

For example, the [[National Labor Relations Board]] issues relatively few [[regulations]], but instead promulgates most of its substantive rules through [[#Disambiguate statute|common law (connotation 1)]].

=== India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (19th century and 1948){{anchor|CL India and Pakistan}} ===
The law of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are largely based on [[English law|English]] common law because of the long period of [[British Empire|British colonial influence]] during the period of the [[British India|British Raj]].

[[History of India|Ancient India]] represented a distinct tradition of law, and had a historically independent school of legal theory and practice. The ''[[Arthashastra]]'', dating from 400 BCE and the ''[[Manusmriti]]'', from 100 CE, were influential treatises in India, texts that were considered authoritative legal guidance.<ref>{{Harvnb|Glenn|2000|p=255}}</ref> [[Manu (Hinduism)|Manu]]'s central philosophy was tolerance and [[Pluralism (political philosophy)|pluralism]], and was cited across [[Southeast Asia]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Glenn|2000|p=276}}</ref> Early in this period, which finally culminated in the creation of the [[Gupta Empire]], relations with ancient Greece and Rome were not infrequent. The appearance of similar fundamental institutions of international law in various parts of the world show that they are inherent in international society, irrespective of culture and tradition.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Alexander |first=C.H. | date=July 1952 |title=International Law in India |journal=The International and Comparative Law Quarterly |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=289–300 |doi=10.1093/iclqaj/1.Pt3.289 |issn=0020-5893}}</ref> Inter-State relations in the pre-Islamic period resulted in clear-cut rules of warfare of a high humanitarian standard, in rules of neutrality, of treaty law, of customary law embodied in religious charters, in exchange of embassies of a temporary or semi-permanent character.<ref>Viswanatha, S.T., ''International Law in Ancient India'', 1925</ref>

When India became part of the [[British Empire]], there was a break in tradition, and Hindu and Islamic law were supplanted by the common law.<ref>{{Harvnb|Glenn|2000|p=273}}</ref> After the failed [[Indian Rebellion of 1857|rebellion]] against the British in 1857, the [[British Parliament]] took over control of India from the [[British East India Company]], and [[British India]] came under the direct rule of [[the Crown]]. The British Parliament passed the [[Government of India Act 1858]] to this effect, which set up the structure of British government in India.<ref name="WDL">{{cite web |url = http://www.wdl.org/en/item/393/ |title = Official, India |work = [[World Digital Library]] |date = 1890–1923 |access-date = 30 May 2013 }}</ref> It established in Britain the office of the [[Secretary of State for India]] through whom the Parliament would exercise its rule, along with a [[Council of India]] to aid him. It also established the office of the [[Governor-General of India]] along with an Executive Council in India, which consisted of high officials of the British Government. As a result, the present judicial system of the country derives largely from the British system and has little correlation to the institutions of the pre-British era.<ref>{{Harvnb|Jain|2006|p=2}}</ref>{{verify-inline|date=August 2015}}

==== Post-partition India (1948){{anchor|CL India}} ====

[[File:Constitution of India.jpg|thumb|right|The [[Constitution of India]] is the longest written constitution for a country, containing 395 articles, 12 schedules, numerous amendments and 117,369 words.]]

Post-partition, [[Law of India|India]] retained its common law system.<ref>{{cite speech|author=[[K. G. Balakrishnan]]|title=An Overview of the Indian Justice Delivery Mechanism|url=http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/abu_dhabi__as_delivered.pdf|event=International Conference of the Presidents of the Supreme Courts of the World|location=Abu Dhabi|access-date=1 August 2012|date=23–24 March 2008|quote=India, being a common law country, derives most of its modern judicial framework from the British legal system.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102153013/http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2008/abu_dhabi__as_delivered.pdf|archive-date=2 November 2012}}</ref> Much of contemporary Indian law shows substantial European and American influence. Legislation first introduced by the British is still in effect in modified form today. During the drafting of the [[Indian Constitution]], laws from Ireland, the United States, Britain, and France were all synthesized to produce a refined set of Indian laws. Indian laws also adhere to the [[United Nations]] guidelines on [[human rights law]] and [[environmental law]]. Certain [[international trade law]]s, such as those on [[intellectual property]], are also enforced in India.

==== Post-partition Pakistan (1948){{anchor|CL Pakistan}} ====

Post-partition, [[Law of Pakistan|Pakistan]] retained its common law system.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/REVIEW_P_46&47_2011_full.pdf | title=Federation of Pakistan v. Bhatti, "''in a common law jurisdiction such as ours''" | access-date=22 February 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110307/http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/REVIEW_P_46%2647_2011_full.pdf | archive-date=6 October 2014 | url-status=dead }}</ref>

==== Post-partition Bangladesh (1968){{anchor|CL Bangladesh}} ====

Post-partition, Bangladesh retained its common law system.

=== Canada (1867){{anchor|CL Canada}} ===

[[Canadian law|Canada]] has separate federal and provincial legal systems.<ref>[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-5.html#anchorbo-ga:s_91-gb:s_91 Constitution Act, 1867], s. 91(10), (18)</ref>

==== Canadian provincial legal systems{{anchor|CL Canada provinces}} ====

Each [[Provinces and territories of Canada|province and territory]] is considered a separate jurisdiction with respect to case law. Each has its own procedural law in civil matters, statutorily created provincial courts and superior trial courts with inherent jurisdiction culminating in the Court of Appeal of the province. These Courts of Appeal are then subject to the Supreme Court of Canada in terms of appeal of their decisions.

All but one of the provinces of [[Law of Canada|Canada]] use a common law system for civil matters (the exception being [[Law of Quebec|Quebec]], which uses a French-heritage civil law system for issues arising within provincial jurisdiction, such as property ownership and contracts).

==== Canadian federal legal system{{anchor|CL Canada federal}}====

Canadian Federal Courts operate under a separate system throughout Canada and deal with narrower range of subject matter than superior courts in each province and territory. They only hear cases on subjects assigned to them by federal statutes, such as immigration, intellectual property, judicial review of federal government decisions, and admiralty. The [[Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)|Federal Court of Appeal]] is the appellate court for federal courts and hears cases in multiple cities; unlike the United States, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal is not divided into appellate circuits.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/index_e.shtml |title=Federal Court of Appeal – Home |publisher=Fca-caf.gc.ca |access-date=17 August 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080504132728/http://www.fca-caf.gc.ca/index_e.shtml |archive-date=4 May 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Canadian federal statutes must use the terminology of both the common law and civil law for civil matters; this is referred to as legislative bijuralism.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/harmonization/bijurilex/aboutb-aproposb.html|title=Department of Justice – About Bijuralism|first=Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Legislative Services|last=Branch|website=canada.justice.gc.ca|date=14 November 2008}}</ref>

==== Canadian criminal law ====
Criminal law is uniform throughout Canada. It is based on the federal statutory Criminal Code, which in addition to substance also details procedural law. The administration of justice are the responsibilities of the provinces. Canadian criminal law uses a common law system no matter which province a case proceeds.

=== Nicaragua ===
[[Nicaragua]]'s legal system is also a mixture of the English Common Law and Civil Law. This situation was brought through the influence of British administration of the Eastern half of the [[Mosquito Coast]] from the mid-17th century until about 1894, the [[William Walker (filibuster)|William Walker]] period from about 1855 through 1857, US interventions/occupations during the period from 1909 to 1933, the influence of US institutions during the [[Somoza family]] administrations (1933 through 1979) and the considerable importation between 1979 and the present of US culture and institutions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Serrano Caldera |first=Alejandro |date=1990 |title=The Rule of Law in the Nicaraguan Revolution |url=https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=ilr |journal=Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review and Compara |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=341}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=UPDATE: Guide to Legal Research in Nicaragua - GlobaLex |url=https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Nicaragua1.html |access-date=2022-05-08 |website=www.nyulawglobal.org}}</ref>

=== Israel (1948){{anchor|CL Israel}} ===
[[Israeli law|Israel]] has no formal written [[Constitution of Israel|constitution]].  Its [[Israeli law|basic principles]] are inherited from the law of the [[Mandate for Palestine|British Mandate of Palestine]] and thus resemble those of British and American law, namely: the role of courts in creating the body of law and the authority of the [[Supreme Court of Israel|supreme court]]<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.lawofisrael.com/israeli-supreme-court-decisions | title=Supreme court decisions database | access-date=20 April 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140409015328/http://www.lawofisrael.com/israeli-supreme-court-decisions/ | archive-date=9 April 2014 | url-status=dead }}</ref> in reviewing and if necessary overturning legislative and executive decisions, as well as employing the adversarial system.  However, because Israel has no written constitution, basic laws can be changed by a vote of 61 out of 120 votes in the parliament.<ref>New York Times, ''A rush to change'' (Jan. 15, 2023); ConstitutionNet, [https://constitutionnet.org/news/basic-law-legislation-basic-law-can-make-or-break-israeli-constitutionalism ''Basic Law Legislation: The Basic Law that can Make or Break Israeli Constitutionalism''] (Aug. 16, 2021).</ref> One of the primary reasons that the [[Constitution of Israel|Israeli constitution]] remains [[unwritten constitution|unwritten]] is the fear by whatever party holds power that creating a written constitution, combined with the common-law elements, would severely limit the powers of the [[Knesset]] (which, following the doctrine of [[parliamentary sovereignty]], holds near-unlimited power).

=== Roman Dutch common law{{anchor|CL Roman Dutch}} ===
[[Roman Dutch law|Roman Dutch common law]] is a bijuridical or mixed system of law similar to the common law system in [[Scotland]] and [[#Louisiana (1700s)|Louisiana]]. Roman Dutch common law jurisdictions include [[Law of South Africa|South Africa]], [[Botswana]], [[Lesotho]], [[Namibia]], [[Swaziland]], [[Sri Lanka]] and [[Zimbabwe]]. Many of these jurisdictions recognise customary law, and in some, such as South Africa the Constitution requires that the common law be developed in accordance with the Bill of Rights. Roman Dutch common law is a development of [[Roman Dutch law]] by courts in the Roman Dutch common law jurisdictions. During the Napoleonic wars the Kingdom of the Netherlands adopted the French ''code civil'' in 1809, however the Dutch colonies in the Cape of Good Hope and Sri Lanka, at the time called Ceylon, were seized by the British to prevent them being used as bases by the French Navy. The system was developed by the courts and spread with the expansion of British colonies in Southern Africa. Roman Dutch common law relies on legal principles set out in Roman law sources such as Justinian's Institutes and Digest, and also on the writing of Dutch jurists of the 17th century such as [[Hugo Grotius|Grotius]] and [[Johannes Voet|Voet]]. In practice, the majority of decisions rely on recent precedent.

=== Ghana ===
Ghana follows the English common law<ref>The common law as used in this paper designates the English common-law as a legal tradition which is made up of law (generally referred to as the common law), and the doctrine of equity.</ref> tradition which was inherited from the British during her colonisation. Consequently, the laws of Ghana are, for the most part, a modified version of imported law that is continuously adapting to changing socio-economic and political realities of the country.<ref>Obiri-Korang P "Private international law of contract in Ghana: the need for a paradigm shift" (2017) P 8; Quansah ''The Ghana Legal System'' (2011) P 51</ref> The Bond of 1844<ref>The Bond was a pact between the British and some chiefs from the southern states of the Gold Coast under which British protection was extended to the signatories in exchange for judicial authority over them.</ref> marked the period when the people of Ghana (then Gold Coast) ceded their independence to the British<ref>See, generally, Benion ''The Constitutional Law of Ghana'' (1962). Boahen, however, submits that the Bond of 1844 is not as important as held by some Ghanaian historians. He further posits that it cannot be the Magna Carta of Ghana or the basis for British rule or law – see Boahen ''Ghana: Evolution and Change in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century'' (1975) 36.</ref> and gave the British judicial authority. Later, the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 formally introduced British law, be it the common law or statutory law, in the Gold Coast.<ref>Asante "Over a hundred years of a national legal system in Ghana: a review and critique" 1988 ''Journal of African Law'' 31 70.</ref> Section 14<ref>This states that "the common law, the doctrines of equity, and Statutes of general application which were in force in England at the date when the colony obtained a local legislature, that is to say, on the 24th of July 1874, shall be in force within the jurisdiction of the court".</ref> of the Ordinance formalised the application of the common-law tradition in the country.

Ghana, after independence, did not do away with the common law system inherited from the British, and today it has been enshrined in the 1992 Constitution of the country. Chapter four of Ghana's Constitution, entitled "The Laws of Ghana", has in Article 11(1) the list of laws applicable in the state. This comprises (a) the Constitution; (b) enactments made by or under the authority of the Parliament established by the Constitution; (c) any Orders, Rules and Regulations made by any person or authority under a power conferred by the Constitution; (d) the existing law; and (e) the common law.<ref>According to Article 11(2) of Ghana's Constitution, the common law of Ghana shall comprise the rule of law generally known as the common law, the rules generally known as the doctrine of equity and the rules of customary law, including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature.</ref> Thus, the modern-day Constitution of Ghana, like those before it, embraced the English common law by entrenching it in its provisions. The doctrine of judicial precedence which is based on the principle of ''stare decisis'' as applied in England and other pure common law countries also applies in Ghana.

== Scholarly works ==
[[File:WilliamBlackstone.jpg|thumb|right|[[Sir William Blackstone]] as illustrated in his ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'']]
[[Edward Coke]], a 17th-century Lord Chief Justice of the English Court of Common Pleas and a [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|Member of Parliament]] (MP), wrote several legal texts that collected and integrated centuries of case law. Lawyers in both England and America learned the law from his ''[[Institutes of the Lawes of England|Institutes]]'' and ''Reports'' until the end of the 18th century. His works are still cited by common law courts around the world.

The next definitive historical treatise on the common law is ''[[Commentaries on the Laws of England]]'', written by Sir [[William Blackstone]] and first published in 1765–1769. Since 1979, a facsimile edition of that first edition has been available in four paper-bound volumes. Today it has been superseded in the English part of the United Kingdom by [[Halsbury's Laws of England]] that covers both common and statutory English law.

While he was still on the [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]], and before being named to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]] published a short volume called ''[[The Common Law (Holmes)|The Common Law]]'', which remains a classic in the field. Unlike Blackstone and the Restatements, Holmes' book only briefly discusses what the law ''is''; rather, Holmes describes the common law ''process''. Law professor [[John Chipman Gray]]'s ''The Nature and Sources of the Law'', an examination and survey of the common law, is also still commonly read in [[Law school in the United States|U.S. law schools]].

In the United States, [[Restatement of the Law|Restatements]] of various subject matter areas (Contracts, Torts, Judgments, and so on.), edited by the [[American Law Institute]], collect the common law for the area. The ALI Restatements are often cited by American courts and lawyers for propositions of uncodified common law, and are considered highly persuasive authority, just below binding precedential decisions. The [[Corpus Juris Secundum]] is an encyclopedia whose main content is a compendium of the common law and its variations throughout the various state jurisdictions.

Scots ''common law'' covers matters including murder and theft, and has sources in custom, in legal writings and previous court decisions. The legal writings used are called ''Institutional Texts'' and come mostly from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Examples include Craig, ''Jus Feudale'' (1655) and Stair, ''The Institutions of the Law of Scotland'' (1681).

== See also ==

* [[Outline of law]]
* [[List of national legal systems#Common law|List of common law national legal systems]]
* [[Books of authority]]
* [[Lists of case law]]
* [[Doom book]], or Code of [[Alfred the Great]]
* [[Time immemorial]]
* [[Slavery at common law]]
* [[Rule against perpetuities]]
* [[Rule in Shelley's Case]]
* [[Fee simple]]
* [[Life estate]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Notelist ==
{{notes}}

== Further reading ==
*{{cite book | title = The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Law and Literature | first1 = Candace | last1 = Barrington | first2 = Sebastian | last2 = Sobecki | year = 2019 | location = Cambridge | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 9781316632345 | doi=	10.1017/9781316848296| s2cid = 242539685 }} Chapters 1–6.
* {{cite book | title = Principles and Possibilities in Common Law | last = Bayern | first = Shawn | date = 2023 | location = Eagan, MN | publisher = West Academic Publishing | isbn=9781685612429 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=2Am5zwEACAAJ}}
* {{cite book | title = Witches, Wife Beaters, and Whores: Common Law and Common Folk in Early America | last = Crane | first = Elaine Forman | date = 2011 | location = Ithaca, NY | publisher = Cornell University Press | isbn = 9780801477416 }}
* {{cite book | title = The Nature of the Common Law | last = Eisenberg | first = Melvin Aron | year = 1991 | publisher = Harvard University Press | location = Boston, MA | isbn=978-0674604810 | url = https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674604810}}
* {{cite book | title = A History of American Law | last = Friedman | first = Lawrence Meir | year = 2005 | publisher = Simon and Schuster | location = New York | edition = 3rd | isbn = 978-0-7432-8258-1 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=JndnEiydTiYC&pg=PR19 }}
* {{cite book | title = A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage | last = Garner | first= Bryan A. | year = 2001 | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | location = New York | edition = 2nd, revised | isbn = 978-0-19-514236-5 | url = https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0 | url-access = registration | page = [https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofmode00garn_0/page/178 178] }}
* {{cite book | title = Legal Traditions of the World | url = https://archive.org/details/legaltraditionso0000glen | url-access = registration | last = Glenn | first = H. Patrick | year = 2000 | isbn = 978-0-19-876575-2 | publisher = Oxford University Press }}
* {{cite book | title = Common Law and Ius Commune | last = Ibbetson | first = David John | author-link = David John Ibbetson | year = 2001 | publisher = [[Selden Society]] | isbn = 978-0-85423-165-2 }}
* {{cite book | title = History of the Common Law: The Development of Anglo-American Legal Institutions | first1 = John H. | last1 = Langbein | authorlink1 = John H. Langbein | first2 = Renée Lettow | last2 = Lerner | first3 = Bruce P. | last3 = Smith | year = 2009 | location = New York | publisher = Aspen Publishers | isbn = 978-0-7355-6290-5 }}
* {{cite book | title = Outlines of Indian Legal and Constitutional History|first=M.P.|last=Jain|year=2006 |edition=6th|publisher=Wadhwa & Co | place = Nagpur | isbn = 978-81-8038-264-2 }}
* [[S. F. C. Milsom|Milsom, S.F.C.]], ''A Natural History of the Common Law''. Columbia University Press (2003) {{ISBN|0231129947}}
* Milsom, S.F.C., ''Historical Foundations of the Common Law'' (2nd ed.). Lexis Law Publishing (Va), (1981) {{ISBN|0406625034}}
* {{cite book | title = Fundamentals of American Law | last = Morrison | first = Alan B. | year = 1996 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = New York | isbn = 978-0-19-876405-2 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Si0lupMPrEoC&pg=PA23 }} 
* {{cite book | title = No Part of the Mother Country, but Distinct Dominions – Law, State Formation and Governance in England, Massachusetts and South Carolina, 1630–1769 | last = Nagl | first = Dominik | year = 2013 | publisher = LIT | location = Berlin | isbn = 978-3-643-11817-2 | url = http://de.scribd.com/doc/204061491/Dominik-Nagl-No-Part-of-the-Mother-Country-but-Distinct-Dominions-Rechtstransfer-Staatsbildung-und-Governance-in-England-Massachusetts-und-South-C | access-date = 30 September 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160812090708/http://de.scribd.com/doc/204061491/Dominik-Nagl-No-Part-of-the-Mother-Country-but-Distinct-Dominions-Rechtstransfer-Staatsbildung-und-Governance-in-England-Massachusetts-und-South-C | archive-date = 12 August 2016 | url-status = dead }}
* {{cite book | title = Law, Liberty and the Constitution: a Brief History of the Common Law | last = Potter | first = Harry | year = 2015 | publisher = [[Boydell and Brewer]] | location = [[Woodbridge, Suffolk|Woodbridge]] | isbn = 978-1-78327-011-8 }}
* {{cite book | title = Jurisprudence: The Theory of the Law | last = Salmond | first = John William | year = 1907 | author-link = John William Salmond | publisher = Stevens and Haynes | location = London | edition = 2nd | oclc = 1384458 | url = https://archive.org/details/jurisprudenceor01salmgoog | page = [https://archive.org/details/jurisprudenceor01salmgoog/page/n52 32] }}

== External links ==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{EB9 Poster|Common Law}}
* [https://archive.org/details/historycommonla01hallgoog ''The History of the Common Law of England, and An analysis of the civil part of the law''], [[Matthew Hale (jurist)|Matthew Hale]]
* [https://archive.org/details/historyofenglish00polluoft  ''The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I'', Pollock and Maitland]
* Select [https://web.archive.org/web/20160622144219/http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/maitland-formsofaction.asp#Select Writs. (F.W.Maitland)]
* [https://archive.org/details/commonlawpleadin00perr/page/n8/mode/1up  ''Common-law Pleading: its history and principles'', R.Ross Perry, (Boston, 1897)]
* {{Gutenberg|no=2449|name=The Common Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.}}; also available at [http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/Holmes/claw_c.htm The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site]
* [http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4147&context=penn_law_review ''The Principle of stare decisis''] [[University of Pennsylvania Law Review#History|American Law Register]]
* [http://ausicl.com/ The Australian Institute of Comparative Legal Systems] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110128190050/http://ausicl.com/ |date=28 January 2011 }}
* [http://www.iilss.org/ The International Institute for Law and Strategic Studies (IILSS)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180809173356/http://iilss.org/ |date=9 August 2018 }}
* [http://legislation.nsw.gov.au/ ''New South Wales Legislation'']
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070628162957/http://xml.lib.hku.hk/gsdl/db/oelawhk/search.shtml Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online] – University of Hong Kong Libraries, Digital Initiatives
* [http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/bouvier/maxims.shtml Maxims of Common Law] from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

{{law}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Common law| ]]
[[Category:Legal history]]
[[Category:Legal systems]]
{{Навигационная таблица/Портал/Английская Википедия}}
[[Категория:Английская Википедия]]
[[Категория:Википедия]]
[[Категория:Статья из Википедии]]
[[Категория:Статья из Английской Википедии]]