Also known as: suit at common law · suits in common law · common law suits · common-law actions
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Civil actions seeking legal remedies such as money damages in which legal rights are ascertained and determined. The category triggers the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial when the amount in controversy exceeds twenty dollars and bars reexamination of jury facts except under common-law procedures.
Santiago Sanchez sued Sterling Manufacturing in federal court after a workplace injury and sought $450,000 in compensatory damages for lost wages and medical costs. Sterling demanded a bench trial. Sanchez timely requested a jury. The court must submit the factual disputes underlying the damages claim to a jury because the action seeks legal relief exceeding twenty dollars.
Scott Summers, a shareholder, filed a derivative suit against Sterling Dynamics alleging corporate mismanagement that caused financial losses. Summers sought recovery of those losses on the corporation's behalf. The court held that the corporation would have been entitled to a jury on the underlying legal claims if it had sued directly, so Summers receives a jury trial on those issues.
Petitioners, who were stockholders in the Lehman Corporation, a closed-end investment company, brought a derivative action in federal district court against the corporation's directors and its brokers, Lehman Brothers. They alleged that Lehman Brothers had obtained control through an illegally large representation on the board in violation of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and used that control to extract excessive brokerage fees from the corporation. The complaint charged the directors with converting corporate assets and with gross abuse of trust, gross misconduct, willful misfeasance, bad faith, and gross negligence. It also accused both the directors and Lehman Brothers of breaching fiduciary duties, committing waste and spoliation, and violating the brokerage contract. Petitioners requested that the defendants account for and pay to the corporation their profits and gains and its losses. They demanded a jury trial on the corporation’s claims. The district court denied the motion to strike the jury demand in part. It held that only the shareholder’s initial claim to speak for the corporation would be tried to the judge while the corporation’s underlying claims would be tried to a jury if the corporation itself had brought suit. Finding substantial grounds for difference of opinion, the district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that a derivative action is entirely equitable in nature and that no jury is available to try any part of it. Because of the conflict among the circuits, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSkylar Sullivan sued a state official in federal court for damages arising from an alleged constitutional violation. The state argued that its own rules allowed nonjury trials in similar matters. The federal court rejected the argument because the claim is a suit at common law seeking legal relief, so the Seventh Amendment controls the availability of a jury.
Joseph Hurtado was charged by an information filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County with the murder of Jose Antonio Estuardo. The information was in the usual form and charged the crime with technical precision and in due legal language. It was filed after the defendant had been examined and committed by a magistrate, as required by the statute. The Constitution of California, adopted in 1879, provides that offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment. The Penal Code of the State, adopted in 1872 and in force at the time, contained provisions authorizing every person to be proceeded against criminally by indictment or by information, and specifying that an information is an accusation in writing presented by the district attorney after preliminary examination or waiver. Hurtado moved to set aside the information on the ground that it was not found or presented by a grand jury. The motion was overruled. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment was pronounced sentencing him to be hanged. From this judgment Hurtado appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which affirmed it. He then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
View caseSean Steele sued a federal official for damages after an alleged unconstitutional search. The official moved to dismiss on immunity grounds before any jury trial. The court noted that suits at common law for damages remain subject to the jury right once the immunity defense is resolved, preserving the constitutional guarantee for the factual issues.
In 1968, Ernest Fitzgerald, a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force, testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress that a new transport plane, the C-5A, was substantially over its projected cost. This testimony apparently embarrassed the Department of Defense and the Air Force. Shortly thereafter, Fitzgerald's job was abolished in a reorganization of the Air Force. Fitzgerald brought suit against a number of officials of the Executive Branch, including petitioners Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield. Fitzgerald alleged that Harlow and Butterfield had participated in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional and statutory rights by arranging to have him dismissed from his position in the Air Force in retaliation for his testimony. As evidence of Harlow's involvement, Fitzgerald relied on a series of conversations in which Harlow discussed Fitzgerald's dismissal with Air Force Secretary Robert Seamans. He also relied on a recorded conversation in which the President later voiced a tentative recollection that Harlow was "all for canning" Fitzgerald. As evidence against Butterfield, Fitzgerald cited a May 1969 White House memorandum. In it Butterfield claimed to have learned that Fitzgerald planned to "blow the whistle" on some "shoddy purchasing practices" by exposing these practices to public view. Fitzgerald also cited communications between Butterfield and Haldeman in December 1969 and January 1970 as evidence that Butterfield participated in the conspiracy to conceal his unlawful discharge and prevent his reemployment. Harlow asserted that Secretary Seamans had advised him that considerations of efficiency required Fitzgerald's removal by a reduction in force. Harlow had no reason to believe that a conspiracy existed. Butterfield stated that he was not involved in any decision concerning Fitzgerald's employment status until more than a month after the termination had been scheduled and announced publicly. Butterfield never communicated his views about Fitzgerald to any official of the Defense Department. The District Court denied the motions of Harlow and Butterfield for summary judgment based on absolute Presidential immunity or, alternatively, qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseSimon Stern brought an action against federal agents seeking money damages for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation during a search of his home. The agents argued no statutory cause of action existed. The court recognized an implied damages remedy, placing the claim within the category of suits at common law that carry a jury trial right.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseSydney Santos sued city police officers under federal law for damages after an alleged unlawful arrest and property damage. The officers moved to strike the jury demand. The court denied the motion because the action for money damages is the modern counterpart of a suit at common law, preserving the right to jury trial on the factual disputes.
On October 29, 1958, at approximately 5:45 a.m., thirteen Chicago police officers entered the apartment of James Monroe and his family without a search warrant or arrest warrant. The officers roused the Monroes from bed using flashlights and forced them at gunpoint to stand naked in the living room while ransacking every room, emptying drawers, and ripping mattress covers. Detective Pape struck Mr. Monroe several times with his flashlight and called him "nigger" and "black boy." Other officers hit and kicked several of the children and pushed them to the floor. Mr. Monroe was then taken to the police station and detained on open charges for ten hours. During this period he was interrogated about a murder, exhibited in lineups, and not permitted to call his family or attorney, although he was not brought before a magistrate despite their availability. He was released without any criminal charges being filed against him. The complaint alleged that these actions occurred under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of Illinois and Chicago, and that the City had no rules or controls over its police officers, permitting them to act without restraint. The Monroes claimed deprivations of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought compensatory and punitive damages from the officers and the City. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseA claim qualifies when it seeks legal relief such as money damages rather than purely equitable remedies like injunctions or rescission. Courts look to whether the action would have been tried in a court of law rather than equity in 1791. Mixed claims preserve the jury right on the legal issues and any common facts.
Supporting sources
Yes. Once a jury has tried the facts in a suit at common law, no federal court may reexamine those findings except according to established common-law procedures such as motions for new trial or judgment as a matter of law. Independent judicial reassessment of credibility or weight of evidence violates the reexamination clause.
Supporting sources
No. When legal and equitable claims arise from the same facts, the legal claim for damages preserves the jury right on common factual issues. The court must try the legal issues to a jury first and then address any remaining equitable matters.
Supporting sources
No constitutional jury right exists in suits against the sovereign because no such right existed at common law. A statutory provision may create a jury right, but the Seventh Amendment itself does not apply.
Supporting sources
…to litigants who properly invoke its jurisdiction. An essential characteristic of that system is the manner in which, in civil common-law actions, it distributes trial functions between judge and jury and, under the influence—if not the command—of the Seventh Amendment, assigns the decisions of disputed questions of fact to the jury.…