Law is a system of laws developed and enforced by governmental or social institutions to govern behavior, with the exact definition of a point of longstanding debate. In common use, it is usually defined as an art and science of civil law. More specifically, the law is commonly referred to as a body of law governed by case law, which is the application of law to specific situations and instances. It also includes administrative law, which refers to the laws and principles that govern certain agencies, including universities, labor unions, businesses, and other associations such as charities.
The history of law is complicated and intricate, and at times appears to defy logic. For instance, when two parties dispute a matter of law, and neither wants to dispute the claim, it is not uncommon for an agreement to be made in relation to the dispute without involving a judge or jury. This “common law” or “common law principle” is referred to by many different terms, such as customary law, admiralty law, and common law principles. One famous case related to the above-mentioned area of law was the U.S. vs. Johnson case, which involved the Johnson’s sword, which was stolen by Martin Johnson from the British. Because of this “principle,” the U.S. was not allowed to seize the sword, and it was ultimately returned to America by the British.
In Canada, unlike the United States, there are no common law courts and no government institutions that can be likened to a national court of justice. Instead, there are several common law systems, including the legal system in Ontario, Canada, and the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. All of these provinces have their own unique legal systems, and each of them has unique judicial systems. Within each province, there are also a number of different tribunals and tribally specific laws. These laws vary widely in their scope, including taxes, property seizure, marriage, divorce, criminal law, probate, trusts, and corporate law.
Historically, the concept of common law developed in order to deal with crimes and interpersonal disputes. The original concept of these laws was that disputes were not based on power, wealth, position, or birth, but were instead based on whether the parties involved had actually suffered or had behaved in a way that was morally wrong. In order to deter individuals and groups from committing illegal acts and engaging in criminal activities, these laws were designed to strengthen the power of the state, and were commonly applied through the use of juries consisting of 12 individuals, six of which were required to hear each case.
Pierson provides an excellent description of the development of this specific area of the law in the United States. It is interesting to learn that the first reference to “jurisdiction” in the United States Constitution occurs in the Bill of Rights, which refers to the “jurisdictions” referred to in the Fifth Amendment. Throughout the history of this provision, the term “jurisdiction” has referred to the jurisdictions that the Bill of Rights refers to in the United States Constitution and is thus not considered a definition of the phrase that would apply to all jurisdictions in the United States.
Another interesting case discussed in Pierson’s book is the trial of Richard McDonald, a member of the Oregon Colony. Richard McDonald had been accused of attempting to freehold a large tract of Oregon land by taking it from its previous owner, which would have been against the law. The Court ultimately found that Richard McDonald had, in fact, freehold of the land, and this holding was held valid because of a clause of the Oregon Constitution that prohibited the Taking of property for public use without just compensation.
Today, this specific part of the Oregon Constitution is known as “theft of property.” The Court has held that this part of the law is not limited to any one party and can therefore apply to one party to a lawsuit as well as one party to another, although the latter would also need to establish standing to pursue such a case. This law is quite similar to the “jurisdiction” referred to above, and courts in many states have applied this reasoning to other instances as well.
In short, when reviewing cases, we look for cases that involve some type of interference with an individual’s rights under the law. We look for cases that challenge certain acts or regulation of some type. Those that involve economic regulation, for example, require the plaintiff (the person challenging the law) to show why a regulation would unreasonably injure that person. Those that involve violations of constitutional law, like anti-spicing laws, require the plaintiff to show why a law violates the constitution.