Also known as:rule of the common law · common law rules · common-law rules
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The procedural standards drawn from English common law that control when and how a federal court may reexamine facts found by a jury in a civil suit. These standards permit only the limited review available through motions for new trial or judgment as a matter of law and bar any broader appellate reexamination of the jury's factual determinations.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Federal Jury Verdict Review
Rhea Reynolds sued her former employer in federal court for breach of an employment contract and recovered $85,000. After the verdict the employer moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the evidence was insufficient. The district court denied the motion and entered judgment on the verdict. On appeal the employer asked the circuit court to reweigh the testimony and set the verdict aside. The court refused, holding that any reexamination of the jury's facts must follow the rules of the common law.
Cross-Examination Limits Applied
Rina Rahman was prosecuted for assault after a neighbor identified her at a preliminary hearing. At trial the neighbor was unavailable, and the prosecution offered the earlier testimony. The defense objected that the testimony violated the rules of the common law because the defendant had never been given a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The court excluded the transcript, requiring live testimony subject to contemporaneous cross-examination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Crawford v. Washington541 U.S. 36 (2004)
State Court Enforcement of Covenants
Rosalind Reed and her neighbors sought to enforce a racially restrictive covenant against Roland Rhodes, who had purchased property in the subdivision. The state supreme court upheld the covenant under state common law. On certiorari the Supreme Court held that judicial enforcement of the covenant would constitute state action violating the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the underlying covenant itself rested on common-law property rules.
Shelley v. Kraemer334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Confiscation of Enemy Debts
Regal Apparel, a British firm, held promissory notes from a U.S. debtor when war was declared. The United States seized the notes as enemy property. The debtor argued that the seizure violated the rules of the common law protecting foreign merchants' debts. The Court examined historical English practice and concluded that confiscation of debts was permissible under the law of nations and consistent with common-law principles applied during wartime.
Brown v. United States12 U.S. 110 (1814)
Defamation Liability Standard
Rising Sun Electronics published an article accusing Rachel Ramirez, a private attorney, of unethical conduct. Ramirez sued for defamation. The publisher argued that common-law strict liability should apply. The Court held that the rules of the common law must yield to First Amendment limits, requiring a showing of fault before a private plaintiff may recover presumed or punitive damages.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974)
Prior Restraint on Publication
Rocky Mountain Mining obtained an injunction under a state nuisance statute barring further publication of a newspaper that had exposed local corruption. The publisher challenged the injunction as an unconstitutional prior restraint. The Court held that the rules of the common law historically disfavored prior restraints and that the statute's mechanism for suppressing publication violated the First Amendment.
Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
2
What does the Seventh Amendment mean by reexamination 'according to the rules of the common law'?+
It means that federal courts may review a jury's factual findings only through the limited procedures recognized at common law, such as a motion for new trial or judgment as a matter of law. Appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or set aside a verdict simply because they disagree with the jury's factual conclusions.
Supporting sources
Does the phrase 'rules of the common law' in the Seventh Amendment incorporate modern procedural devices?+
No. The phrase refers to the common-law procedures available in 1791 for correcting jury verdicts. Later statutory or rule-based devices are permissible only to the extent they preserve the substance of those common-law limits on reexamination.
Supporting sources
541 U.S. 36 (2004)Evidence
…a deposition taken by a coroner in the absence of the accused. It held: "[I]f we are to decide the question by the established rules of the common law, there could not be a dissenting voice. For, notwithstanding the death of the witness, and whatever the respectability of the court taking the depositions, the solemnity of the occasion and…