The United States of America uses a federal system of government. As anyone who follows American politics can tell you, federalism means different things to different people. However, the legal definition of a federal state is as follows: thirty-five states have adopted codes of civil procedure modeled on the FRCP (including rule numbers). In doing so, however, they had to make some changes to account for the fact that state courts have broad general jurisdiction, while federal courts have relatively limited jurisdiction. The very substance of English law has been officially „received” in the United States in various ways. First, all U.S. states, with the exception of Louisiana, have issued „admission laws,” which generally state that the common law of England (especially judicial law) is the law of the state, as long as it does not violate national law or native conditions. [27] Some admission laws prescribe a specific date for receipt, such as the date of founding of a colony, while others are deliberately vague. [28] For example, contemporary American courts often cite pre-revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient principle of customary law created by judges in its modern form,[28] such as the enhanced duty of care traditionally imposed on ordinary carriers. [29] The most influential innovation in American tort law in the 20th century was the strict liability rule for defective products, which was based on judicial glosses on warranty law. In 1963, Roger J. Traynor of the California Supreme Court rejected warranty-based legal fictions and imposed strict liability for defective products as a matter of public order in the landmark Greenman v.

Yuba Power Products case. [81] The American Law Institute subsequently adopted a slightly different version of the Greenman Rule in Article 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, published in 1964 and highly influential in the United States. [82] Outside the United States, the rule was adopted by the European Economic Community in the Product Liability Directive of July 1985[83], by Australia in July 1992[84] and by Japan in June 1994. [85] The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law tradition of English law. [22] Certain practices traditionally permitted by English common law have been expressly prohibited by the Constitution, such as the Bills of Attainder[23] and general search warrants. [24] Initially, even after the Revolution, American courts often cited contemporary English cases, as appellate decisions of many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century. Lawyers and judges used legal documents in English to fill the void. [32] Quotations from English decisions gradually disappeared in the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles for solving the legal problems of the American people. [33] The number of published volumes of American reports increased from eighteen in 1810 to more than 8,000 in 1910. [34] As early as 1879, one of the delegates to the California Constitutional Convention complained: „Well, when we ask them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean that they have to write a hundred pages of detail. We do not think they should include the small cases and impose all this beautiful legal literature on the country, because the Lord knows that we already have enough.

[35] [36] Jurists refer to individual legal entities as authorities and describe their relationship to each other as a hierarchy of authority. As we have seen above, the standard hierarchy of authority begins with constitutions as the most authoritarian, and then proceeds in the order of authority through laws, judicial notices and administrative regulations. However, this simple hierarchy does not take into account the nuances required when it comes to authorities of several administrations or authorities of one administration applied by the courts of another jurisdiction. In addition, not all legal opinions carry the same weight. Therefore, more description is good. For a legal norm to be valid in the United States, it must have been created by a process outlined in the current Constitution. In the United States, for example, the U.S. Constitution serves as a rule of recognition for the federal government. Similarly, state constitutions serve as rules of recognition for their respective state governments. In positivism, constitutions derive their authority from the will and acceptance of the people.

Thus, for the American jurist, constitutions represent the ultimate source of law. Some States distinguish between two levels: crime and misdemeanour (minor crimes). [74] In general, most felony convictions result in long prison sentences, followed by conditional sentences, heavy fines, and compensation orders directly to victims; Offences can result in imprisonment of one year or less and a significant fine. To facilitate the prosecution of traffic violations and other relatively minor offenses, some states have added a third level, offenses. These can result in fines and sometimes the loss of a driver`s license, but not jail. The principle that defines the common law is the requirement that courts follow the decisions of the superior courts of the same jurisdiction. From this legacy of stare decisis, a reasonably predictable and coherent body of law emerged. Things get complicated when you consider that a jurisdiction`s judicial system does not necessarily always apply its own laws. For each controversy that arises before it, a court determines which law of jurisdiction is to be applied. This is called choice of law.22 There are a number of factors and guiding principles that determine which laws a court should apply, but for the purposes of legal research, it is important to remember that while federal courts interpret much federal law, they sometimes also interpret and apply state law. While one state`s judicial system generally interprets the state`s own laws, it sometimes has to enforce federal laws or even the laws of another state.