UNIT 1

Part 1

THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM

Vocabulary

Part 1. Origins of the American Legal System

unite into a single nation	объединяться в единое государство
agree to a weak confederation	согласиться на создание слабой конфедерации
The Articles of Confederation	«Статьи Конфедерации», договор об образовании тринадцати английских колоний в Северной Америке (тринадцати штатов США)
ratify	ратифицировать, одобрять
government federal government central government	государственная власть, форма правления федеральные власти, федеральное правительство центральное правительство, органы центрального государственного управления
federal court	федеральный суд (в отличие от суда штата)
the single chamber of Congress	единственная палата Конгресса
enforce laws	следить за соблюдением законов, обеспечивать исполнение законов
ignore with impunity	игнорировать, пренебрегать безнаказанно
protective (of)	бережно относящийся к чему-либо, заботящийся о чем-либо
empower	уполномочить, предоставить право
impose taxes	облагать налогами
wage war	вести войну
interstate commerce	торговые отношения между штатами, торговля между штатами
make a treaty	заключать договор
Constitutional Convention	Конституционный Конвент (состоялся в 1787 году в Филадельфии при участии 55 делегатов из 12 штатов и был созван с целью пересмотра «Статей Конфедерации»)
federal system of courts	федеральная система судов
executive branch	исполнительная власть
office of the president	пост (должность) президента
representation	репрезентативность, представительность
legislative branch	законодательная власть
bicameral	двухпалатный
the House of Representatives	Палата представителей (нижняя палата Конгресса США)
the Senate	Сенат (верхняя палата Конгресса США)
Congress	Конгресс
checks and balances	сдержки и противовесы
ensure	обеспечивать, гарантировать
provide an external check	обеспечить средство внешнего контроля
explicitly	прямо, в прямой форме
power of judicial review	право судебной власти пересматривать и отменять постановления законодательной и исполнительной властей
constitutionality	конституционность, соответствие конституции
legislation	законодательство
judiciary	судебная профессия, судейский корпус
adhere (to)	придерживаться, присоединяться
overstep powers	превысить полномочия
declare unconstitutional	признать неконституционным
the Supreme Court	Верховный суд
validity of state statutes	законная сила (действительность) статутов (законов) штатов
be in conflict with the federal constitution	противоречить федеральной конституции

Part 2. The Common Law System

common law (syn.: case law, judge-made law)	обычное право
common law system	система обычного права
to an extent	в некоторой степени
codified	кодифицированный
statutory provision	норма закона, предписание статута
constitutional provision	конституционная норма, положение Конституции
apply	применять
rely on	полагаться на, ссылаться на
case	прецедент
issue	вопрос, подлежащий обсуждению
take precedence over	быть более важным, иметь преимущественное значение (над чем-либо)
interaction	взаимодействие
model code	типовой кодекс
the Uniform Business Code	Единообразный финансовый кодекс
the Model Penal Code	Модельный (типовой) уголовный кодекс
reconcile	примирять, согласовывать
guidelines	указания, правила, руководство
promulgate legislation	обнародовать, опубликовать законодательство
enact in entirety	вводить в силу в полном объеме, полностью
ensure uniformity	обеспечивать единообразие
precedent	прецедент
have greater authoritative weight	иметь более существенное значение
stare decisis	lat. «стоять на решенном», обязывающая сила прецедента
binding binding authority	юридически обязывающий обязывающая сила, обязательность; юридически обязывающий прецедент
ruling	судебное постановление
pending case	дело на стадии рассмотрения
repudiate	расторгать, отказываться
overturn a decision	отменить вынесенное судом решение
uncertain uncertainty	сомнительный, неясный неопределенность, неясность
instrumental	играющий важную роль, служащий средством достижения
settle out of court	урегулировать спор без судебного разбирательства
infer	делать вывод, заключить
opposing sides	противостоящие стороны

Part 3. Holding and Dicta

holding	в англосаксонском праве: часть судебного решения, являющаяся обязательной для других судов
dicta	Lat.: «сказанное»; в англосаксонском праве: часть судебного решения, имеющая лишь убеждающий характер и не являющаяся обязательной для других судов
binding authority	обязывающая сила прецедента
persuasive authority	убедительный прецедент
rule of law	норма права, принцип господства права
legal memorandum (pl.: legal memoranda)	меморандум, аналитическая записка

Part 4. Substance and Procedure

substantive law	материальное право
procedural law	процессуальное право
pretrial actions	досудебные действия
admissibility of evidence	допустимость доказательств
law of torts	деликтное право
products liability	ответственность производителя
possession of illegal substances	хранение запрещенных веществ

Part 5. Understanding Legal Citations

legal citation	ссылка на правовой акт
unambiguous	однозначный, точно выраженный
the style of a case (syn.: heading)	наименование судебного дела
Reporter	сборник судебных решений
North Eastern Reporter	сборник судебных решений северо-восточных штатов США
North Western Reporter	сборник судебных решений северо-западных штатов США
South Eastern Reporter	сборник судебных решений юго-восточных штатов США
South Western Reporter	сборник судебных решений юго-западных штатов США
Pacific Reporter	сборник судебных решений западных и тихоокеанских штатов
U.S. Supreme Court reporter	сборник решений Верховного суда США
serve as precedent	служить прецедентом
shorthand	сокращение
Cir. Ct. (circuit court)	окружной суд

Part 6. Legal Encyclopedias and Restatements of the Law

encyclopedia	энциклопедия
Restatement of the Law	Свод норм права
civil law	зд. романо-германское право
common law	зд. англо-саксонское право
case law	прецедентное право
Corpus Juris Secundum	Вторая правовая энциклопедия
American Jurisprudence	Сборник решений американских судов
hornbook	азбука, учебник
treatise	трактат; научный труд; учебник
cite	ссылаться, цитировать
compilation of laws	сборник законов
legal authority	зд. авторитетный специалист по праву
statutory form	официальная форма, предусмотренная законом форма

Exercise 1. Before reading the text discuss the following questions with your partner first, then share your ideas with the group mates.

1. In your opinion, what events played the most important role in establishing legal systems in the United States and in the Russian Federation?

2. In what ways are American and Russian legal systems different? Which system do you consider the most efficient? Why?

Read the text

The american legal system

(abridged from “American Legal English. Using Language in Legal Contexts”

by Debra S.Lee, J.D., Charles Hal, Marsha Hurley, J.D.)

Part 1. Origins of the American Legal System

To begin to understand U.S. law, you must look at the founding of the United States and the uniting of the individual colonies into a single nation. The American War of Independence (1776-83) brought the original thirteen colonies together, and the colonies, declaring themselves independent states, agreed to a very week confederation. The first federal constitution of the United States, “The Articles of Confederation”, was written in 1778 and was finally ratified by the states in 1781. In this first form of American government, there were neither federal courts nor a president and the single chamber of Congress had no way to enforce its laws. The individual states could and did ignore federal laws with impunity. Moving of sovereign states toward a stronger central government resulted in a central government, still protective of states’ rights, but with broader federal powers over individuals. The federal government was empowered to impose certain federal taxes, to wage war in the name of all the states, to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and to make treaties with foreign governments or nations. The remaining powers belonged to the states. The Constitutional Convention resulted in the new constitution (1787). This new constitution added two branches to the federal government: the federal system of courts with the Supreme Court as its head and the executive branch under the control of the newly created office of the president. To help solve a major problem of representation between the large and the small states, the legislative branch was changed to its present bicameral form – the House of Representatives and the Senate, known collectively as Congress. The Constitution (1787) established the system of checks and balances. These checks and balances ensure that no one branch of the federal government becomes too powerful. Additionally, the states also provide an external check to ensure that the federal government as a whole doesn’t become too powerful. The Constitution did not explicitly give the power of judicial review (the ability of a court to decide on the constitutionality of legislation) to the newly created federal judiciary. In Re Marbury v. Madison (1803) it was held that it was the job of the federal courts to decide if Congress had adhered to the rules in the Constitution. Consequently, it was accepted by all branches of the federal government that the role of the judiciary was to determine if Congress had overstepped its powers and, if it had, to declare the legislation unconstitutional. Not long after that decision, the Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution gave the court the authority to judge the validity of state statutes if they seemed in conflict with the federal constitution.

Part 2. The Common Law System

Anglo-American law is called “case law” or “judge-made law”. That’s true to an extent, but in reality a significant portion of the law of the United States is codified. In some cases no statutory or constitutional provisions will apply. Under those circumstances, attorneys must rely on earlier cases (“the common law”) on the issue; however, constitutional provisions and statutes take precedence over case law. One additional factor that seems to make U.S. law difficult to understand is that in addition to federal law, there is also the complexity of the interactions of fifty sets of state laws. However, the model codes, such as the Uniform Business Code and the Model Penal Code, have been extremely helpful in reconciling the laws of the fifty states. Model codes are written by law professors, judges, and attorneys as guidelines for state and federal legislatures when promulgating legislation. Unless specifically enacted by a state or a federal legislature, a model code has no force as law. Some states choose to enact only portions of a model code, some enact it in its entirety, and others choose not to accept any of the model code’s provisions. However, use of the model codes by most states for at least some of the provisions has ensured some uniformity in U.S. law.

Judges, whether appointed or elected, have the legal right to make certain types of decisions. Once a judge makes a decision, that decision becomes a precedent. In U.S. common law, some precedents have greater authoritative weight than others. The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere is the umbrella under which precedent stands. Stare decisis requires that courts follow common law precedents. But a court is only required to follow those precedents that are binding on that particular court. Binding authority is a ruling that was decided by a higher court in the direct line of appeal.

If a precedent is binding, judges have two options when they are looking at a case involving that precedent: they are either forced to decide the pending case in accordance with the law of the earlier cases or to repudiate the earlier decision. The fact that a judge may overturn a decision doesn’t mean that the law is uncertain. In only a few limited areas would most attorneys in the United States admit to legal uncertainty. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court intentionally chooses to hear cases that may be instrumental in changing laws.

Ninety percent of the cases in the United States are settled out of court. This allows us to infer that in 90 percent of cases attorneys for opposing sides reach a compromise based on research and an understanding of the law as the judge would see it.

Part 3. Holding and Dicta

Related to the binding and persuasive authority is the distinction between holding and dicta (plural form of dictum). American law students, especially when writing legal memoranda, should understand the difference:

• Holding – the rule of law or legal principle that comes from the decision or the judgment plus the material facts of the case; binding authority.

• Dicta – other statements in the decision that do not form part of the holding; persuasive authority. Example: Sandy claims that the issue of his liability for damage on his sidewalk resulting in injury to another was settled in a previous case. The judge reminds Sandy that the previous case concerned the city’s obligation for injury to a person. The part of the case addressed to a private citizen’s liability was not necessary to the decision and was only dictum and is not binding on this judge.

The precedent established by the case is the holding. In general, the holding of a case is binding authority, whereas the dicta are merely persuasive authority; arguments based on dicta are not binding. However, do not assume that dicta in a case are totally unimportant; sometimes the dicta become more important in later years than the actual holding.

Part 4. Substance and Procedure

The distinction between substantive and procedural law is much more important for modern attorneys. Procedural law establishes the rules for enforcing or administering law. It involves issues of jurisdiction, pretrial actions, admissibility of evidence, and appeals. Procedural rules ensure that a trial is fair and timely. On the other hand, substantive law concerns the law dealing with the facts of the case itself, such as the law of torts, products liability, corporations, or contracts. For example, the possession of illegal substances would be an element of substantive law, but getting the evidence admitted into court would be a part of procedural law.

Part 5. Understanding Legal Citations

A legal citation refers to the full text of a statute, a case, or some other sources of legal information. The important thing to remember is that these citations are always unambiguous: they tell you exactly where you can locate the original document. If the legal citation is to a statute, the citation will direct you to the appropriate volume and section number of the code. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 would refer to the 1001^st section of the 18^th volume of the United States Code.

If the citation is to a case, it will contain both the style of a case or heading (the names of the parties who are involved in the litigation) and sufficient information to locate the text of the case. Full texts of cases are found in volumes called reporters, which record and preserve decisions of a particular court or courts and are usually based on geography. There are state reporters (Md., Va.), regional reporters (A. and A. 2d (Atlantic); N.E., and N.E. 2d (North Eastern Reporter); N.W. and N.W. 2d (North Western Reporter); S.E., and S.E. 2d. (South Eastern Reporter), S.W., and S.W. 2d. (South Western Reporter) and P., P. 2d and P. 3d. (Pacific Reporter), federal reporters (F., F. 2d, F. 3d and F. Supp., and F. Supp. 2d), and U.S. Supreme Court reporters (U.S.; S.Ct.; L.Ed.2d). Statutes establish the criteria for inclusion of the cases in the reporters. Once decisions are published, they serve as precedent for any future decisions in the same jurisdiction.

Locating the case in a reporter is simple once you understand the shorthand used in case citation. Let’s look at one citation to see what we can learn: Schoonover v. Black Bros. Co, 914, F.2d, 258 (6th Cir. Сt. 1990).

Schoonover v. Black Bros. Co	the parties' names; in the citation, names are underlined and are followed by a comma and a lower case "v." replaces "versus"
914	Reporter volume number followed by a comma
F.2d	Reporter name (abbreviated ) followed by a comma
258	The first page of the case in that volume
6th Cir. Ct. 1990	The court and the year of decision is enclosed in parentheses and followed with a period

Part 6. Legal Encyclopedias and Restatements of the Law

Civil law is code based, and attorneys do not rely on cases to clarify statutes, relying instead on legal commentaries. Common law relies heavily on case law to clarify the statutes. Because the American legal system is based upon common law, the ability to read and synthesize cases is crucial. In order to understand how the precedent (cases) and statutes work together it is often necessary to do a legal synthesis of both precedent and statutes. There are several different types of works that provide syntheses of law: Corpus Juris Secundum, American Jurisprudence, and hornbooks (treatises) on various legal subjects such as contracts, torts, products liability, or corporations. However, these sources are only for background work; no American attorney should ever cite these in legal memoranda or in court.

The series Restatements of the Law (on torts, contracts, etc.) also provides a synthesis of law but is considered more valuable authority than general legal encyclopedias. These volumes are a compilation of laws by various legal authorities, including judges and law professors, who synthesize the law on various issues and put it in a statutory form. These “statutes” are not considered law in the United States, but occasionally references to Restatements can be found in court opinions or legal memoranda submitted to the court.

READING COMPREHENSION

Exercise 2. Answer the questions.

1. What document declared the creation of The United States of America?

2. What system of government was established according to “The Articles of Confederation”?

3. What was the result of moving of sovereign states toward a stronger central government?

4. What two branches of government were created under the Constitution (1787)?

5. What does the system of checks and balances ensure?

6. What do states do to ensure that the federal government as a whole doesn’t become too powerful?

7. Which branch is empowered to decide on the constitutionality of legislation?

8. What factors make U.S. law difficult to understand?

9. What is the difference between holding and dicta?

10. Why is it important to understand the difference between substance and procedure?

11. Are legal encyclopedias more authoritative than Restatements of the Law? How can you prove that?