Case Law and the U.S. Court System

State Judicial Systems

The exact organization of the state court systems differs from state to state, but there are always trial courts and appellate courts, although the names of the courts at each level can be quite different.

For example, the trial court in Connecticut is called the Superior Court, while the trial court in New York is called the Supreme Court. The intermediate appellate court in Connecticut is called the Appellate Court, while in New York it is called the Appellate Division for the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The highest appellate court in Connecticut is called the Supreme Court of Connecticut, while in New York it is called the Court of Appeals of New York.

The trial courts are usually the first forum to which parties bring disputes. Some trial courts are called courts of general jurisdiction, which means they have the authority to hear all types of cases. Some trial courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, which means that they have the authority to hear only certain types of cases. For example:

Jerry was involved in a motor vehicle collision on I-95 in Connecticut and wants to sue the driver of the other car for negligence. He may not bring this cause of action in the Probate Court in Connecticut, as the Probate Court may only hear issues dealing with Probate (e.g., will contests, trust administration, etc.); it may not consider negligence cases or contract cases. Instead, Jerry must file his complaint with the Superior Court.

The trial court’s purpose is to hear evidence, determine the facts of the case, and apply the law to the facts to arrive at a decision. It is in the trial court that evidence is heard, witnesses are examined, and juries make decisions. Usually, only one judge presides over each proceeding.

The losing party, or a party that disagrees with a specific decision of the trial court, may, in most cases, appeal the decision to the appellate court. The court to which such a decision can be appealed to is usually a mid-level appellate tribunal. Appeals are usually presided over by a panel of three to five judges, and a majority must concur to reach a decision. Here, the judges will decide whether the trial court erred in its analysis of the law or in its application of the law to the facts. The intermediate appellate court will not generally disturb findings of fact made at the trial court level, as such decisions are usually left to the discretion of the trial court. A finding of fact will usually only be disturbed where the trial court has abused its discretion. The appellate court has the power to modify the trial court’s decision, in whole or in part, or to remand (send back) the case to the trial court for a new trial.

The party that loses in the appellate court may ask the highest court of appeals, usually called the (Federal or State) Supreme Court, to hear the appeal and to determine whether the intermediate appellate court erred. In Latin, this is known as petitioning the court for a writ of certiorari. In most cases, the Supreme Courts are not obligated to hear every appeal and have discretion as to whether or not to grant certiorari.

It is important to note that a denial of certiorari offers no indication of a court’s opinion as to the merits of a particular case. All it means is that the court did not feel that the case was significant enough to spend the court's time on. Keep in mind that Supreme Courts have limited amounts of time and huge numbers of requests for certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, only has time to hear about one in every fifty cases that are appealed to it. Therefore, the Court must pick only the most significant and far reaching cases and issues to hear and resolve. A denial of certiorari means only that more significant cases occupied the Court's time, not that the lower courts' decisions were correct.

If a party loses a case in the highest available state court, the party may appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but only if the appeal is based on an issue of federal law or is based on the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has no power to review state court decisions that are based on state law.

Federal Judicial System

The federal judicial system is similar to the states’ systems in that there is a trial court level and two appellate court levels. Federal courts, however, are courts of limited jurisdiction, in that they may not hear every dispute. Generally, federal courts may hear disputes involving federal law, questions pertaining to the United States Constitution, disputes between citizens of different states, and cases in which the United States is a party.

At the federal level, trial courts are called United States District Courts. The country is divided into almost 100 districts. Each state has at least one district, and some states have more than one district (each district has one or more actual federal courts within its borders). For example, New York is divided into districts: the Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern Districts of New York. In general, the larger the state, in terms of population and legal activity, the more districts the state will have. Each state has at least one district to itself and no state has more than four districts. The district courts are limited to hearing cases involving its territory. For example:

Brian and Charles are involved in a contract dispute in Buffalo, New York, which is in the western part of the state and is under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Absent extraordinary circumstances, Brian could not bring a cause of action against Charles in the Southern District of New York, which encompasses parts of New York City and its suburbs.

At the federal level, the intermediate appellate courts are called the United States Courts of Appeals. The jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals is divided into circuits. There are a total of thirteen circuits in the United States, including the District of Columbia Circuit and the "Federal" Circuit. The other circuits are numbered 1 through 11 and are divided as follows:

First Circuit: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island

Second Circuit: Connecticut, New York, Vermont

Third Circuit: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, U.S. Virgin Islands

Fourth Circuit: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

Fifth Circuit: Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee

Seventh Circuit: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin

Eighth Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington

Tenth Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming

Eleventh Circuit: Alabama, Florida, Georgia

The U.S. Supreme Court does not hear every case it is asked to review; rather, it has discretion to grant or deny certiorari to any case it chooses. The court is asked to resolve thousands of disputes every year, and, generally, it agrees to hear only about 300 cases. Only about 150 are actually argued before the Court and receive a final decision. The Court usually hears cases regarding interpretation or application of the United States Constitution or federal law that have great impact throughout the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court also sometimes may serve as a trial court in some case. For example, the Supreme Court may conduct trials in cases involving disputes between two states, disputes between a state and the United States, actions by a state against a citizen of another state or a foreign national, and cases brought by or against a foreign ambassador or consul.

Common Law

The common Law has developed over hundreds of years in England and the United States, and refers to legal principles created and established by the courts. It involves no legislation. Today, however, many common law principles have been enacted into statutes, albeit with some variations.

Case Law

Case Law is law that comes from court interpretation of existing statutory laws, common law or constitutional provisions. Case law differs from common law in that case law refers to modern or even current court decisions, whereas common law refers to the general law that has existed over the centuries, dating back to early American and British history. Case law is important because it is the job of the courts to interpret statutes and constitutions. Thus, where the application of a law to the facts of a particular case is unclear (as it often is), case law (the decisions of courts) can be the determining factor as to how a court should interpret the law.

Case law becomes the controlling law in a jurisdiction where there is no statute or constitutional position that directly addresses an issue. Since statutes and constitutions are often very vaguely worded, case law, in reality, is arguably the most important and frequently researched type of law in the United States today.

Where courts have ruled on an issue and the legislature has not enacted legislation in response, case law becomes the law of the jurisdiction. For example:

EXAMPLE: Assume that the legislature in Alaska enacted a statute that stated: “No citizen of Alaska may operate a motor vehicle that greatly pollutes the air.” Assume further that the Supreme Court of Alaska interpreted this statute to mean that no citizen of Alaska may operate a motor vehicle with a diesel engine. Without a response from the legislature, the Supreme Court’s decision controls. In such a situation, if the legislature disagrees with the Court’s interpretation, it can amend the statute to clarify the meaning.

Courts are bound to follow decisions of some courts, while they may, but are not required to, follow the decisions of other courts. When one court is required to follow the decision of another court, a case from that court is called “mandatory authority", while a decision from a court that the current court is not bound to follow is called “persuasive authority".

Mandatory authority also includes state or federal statutes that the court is bound to follow, while persuasive authority includes all cases and statutes that a court is not bound to follow. Persuasive authority also includes other sources that the court is not bound by, such as law review articles, treatises, legal encyclopedias, etc.

The appeals process determines which court decisions other courts are bound to follow. A court is bound to follow the decision of any court to which a case from its court could be appealed. For example:

A federal trial court in Texas is bound by the decisions of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A federal trial court in Texas is NOT bound by the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A Massachusetts trial court is bound by decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
A Massachusetts trial court is NOT bound by decisions of the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
All courts are bound by decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding matters of federal or Constitutional law.

Reading a Case

A court’s decision can usually be divided into the following sections: introduction, issue(s), procedural history, analysis or rationale, holding, and dicta.

The introduction is usually a paragraph in which the court briefly explains the nature of the case, such as:

“This case involves a motor vehicle collision that occurred when, according to the plaintiff, the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear.”

The issue is the question the court is asked to decide, such as:

“The issue presently before the court is into what types of proceedings one may intervene under Connecticut General Statutes § 22a-19.”

Most appellate court decisions include a few paragraphs that give the procedural history of the case. For example:

“This case was tried before the Superior Court five years ago, where the trial court ruled that the defendant could not be negligent without knowledge of the product’s defect. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial. Upon remand and after a trial, the trial court held that the jury’s award was excessive and reduced the plaintiff’s award to $100. The plaintiff appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s holding. We granted certiorari to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the plaintiff’s award.”

The analysis or rationale of a case is just that – the analysis the court conducts to reach its decision. It is usually a logical discussion of the applicable law: case law, statutory law or both, with references to other decisions and, often, public policy.

The holding of a case is the court’s ultimate decision. For example:

“The court holds that one may not be liable for negligent design of a defective product where there is no proof that an alternate, safer design was available.”

Dicta is a Latin term that refers to parts of a decision that are not crucial to the decision, but are simply the tangential opinions or analysis of the author. While dicta may be persuasive, it is not the legal basis for the decision. When citing a case, be careful to distinguish dicta from the actual rationale that the court uses to arrive at a conclusion, as dicta is not binding in that proceeding or on any future courts dealing with relevant issues.

Finally, it is worthwhile to note the concept of judicial activism. Judges, at least in theory, are supposed to arrive at a decision free of biases and sentiment. Just as judges do not enforce laws, neither are they supposed to make laws. A judge is supposed to consider deference, predictability and uniformity and not be moved by his or her own political opinions. It is the legislature who is supposed to consider political opinions and, ideally, the will of its constituents. Be wary of decisions where the judge bases his or her decision on his or her own opinions rather than on the intent of the legislature or the applicable constitution.

A Project of National Paralegal College,
a Division of Crestpoint University