法律英语课后问题整理

第一单元：LEGALSYSYTEM主课文：1.ThecommonlawtraditionoriginatedinEngland.Thedecisionsoftheroyalcourtsbecamethelawcommontothewholekingdom,thecommonlaw.2.Bothlawandequityarepartofwhatiscalledthecommonlaw.3.Louisiana:civillaw,theothers:commonlaw4.Theexpression“civillaw”,inLatinjuscivilis,literallymeansthelawofthecitizensofRome.Nowthecivilianjuristsrefertowhatwecallprivatelawsimplyas“thecivillaw”(persons,propertyandobligations)5.Incommonlawcountries,casesareusuallyconsideredtobetheprimarysourceoflaw.Incivillawcountries,casesarenotasourceoflaw.6.Civillawjuristswillconsiderthecivilcodeasanallencompassingdocument.Onthecontraryincommonlawjurisdictionslegislationtendstobeconsideredasanexceptiontothecaselaw.7.Americanlegaleducationisveryoriginalandinmanyrespectsunique.ThecasemethodorSocraticmethodispeculiartothiscountry.8.No,onlythroughthepostgraduatedegree.9.ThecasemethodisimportantinAmerica,inothercountries,theteachingstyleismagisterial—theprofessorexpressthelawtohisorherstudents,whotakenotesanddonotinterveneinclass.10.Theprofessorsplayanimportantroleindefiningthelawincivillawsystem,whilethejudgesinthecommonlawsystem.副课文：1．Thedecisionsofjudges,orofotherofficialsempoweredbytheconstitutionorlawsofapoliticalentitytohearanddecidecontroversies,createcaselaw.Asthename“caselaw”suggests,aparticulardecision,oracollectionofparticulardecisions,generatelaw-thatis,rulesofgeneralapplication.2．Fromthepointofviewofpartiestoalawsuitorothercontestedcontroversy,whatmattersistheimmediateoutcome,theresultthetribualreachesintheircase.Thedecisionhasimmediateandspecialsignificance.Intheviewofjudges,lawyersandlawstudents,however,thedecisiontakesonbroaderperspective.Thedecisionbecomesapossiblesourceofgeneralapplicablecaselaw.3.Inanyjudicialsystemrulesoflawarisesoonerorlateroutofsuchdecisionsofcases,asrulesofactionariseoutofthesolutionofparticularproblems.Thesegeneralizationscontainedin,orbuiltupon,pastdecisions,whentakenasnormativeforfuturedisputes,createalegalsystemofprecedent……..4.Acourtthatfollowsprecedentmechanicallyortoostrictlywillattimesperpetuatelegalrulesandconceptsthathaveoutlivedtheirusefulness.5.Theproblemishowtomaintainanacceptableaccommodationofthecompetingvaluesofstabilityinalaw,servedbyadherencetoprecedent,andresponsivenesstosocialchange,whichmaycallfortheabandonmentofanoutwornlegaldoctrine.thisproblemofstabilityversuschangewillbearecurringthemeinthecasebook6.staredecisis:doctrineofprecedent,asaprecedent,orpotentialprecedent,forfuturecases.Resjudicata:asanauthoritativesettlementofaparticularcontroversythenbeforethecourt.7.resjudicata8.Acourtoflastresortinonestatedoesnotconsideritselfboundtofollowanotherstate’scaselawrules,butitwillcarefullyconsidertheoutstatedecisionsand,ifitfindstheirreasoningpersuasive,makeuseofthemassourcesofguidanceandjustification.9.Howeverhospitableacourtoflastresortmaybetopersuasiveauthorityfromotherjurisdictions,anoutstatecaseisnotasauthoritativeandshouldnotbeassignedthesameforceasatrue“precedent”.10.Thedifferenceindegreeofinfluenceismuchlikethedifferencebetweentheholdingofacaseanddictuminajudicialopinion,the“holding”beingfullyauthoritativeandgenerallybindingandthe“dictum”only,again,persuasiveauthority.第二单元COURTSYSYTEM主课文：1.limitedtocivilsuitsinvolvingrelativelysmallamountsofmoneyandtominorviolationsofthecriminallaw.2.Acourtempoweredtotryallkindsofcases,withoutmonetaryorsubjectmatterlimitation.3.Toreviewtheactionofthelowerjudicialtribunalsofthestate.Thisistheexerciseofappellatejurisdiction.4.（1）avastincreaseinappellatelitigationwhich,particularlyinthemorepopulousstates,soonledtohopelesscongestionofthedocketsofthestatecourtsoflastresort.(2)empoweredtostrainoutandfinallydisposeofthebulkofappellatelitigation-cases.5.Thelandmarkstatuteintheevolutionofthefederaljudicialsystem.6.Normallypresidedoverbyasinglejudge,althoughthereareafewsituations,chieflycasesinwhichinjunctionsaresoughtonfederalconstitutionalgroundsagainsttheenforcementofstateorfederalstatutes,inwhichathree-judgecourtmustbeconvened.7.(1)thejurisdictionofaDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStatesmustbebasedeitheronthecharacterofthecontroversyoronthecharacterofpartiestothecontroversy.(2)withinoneoranotherofthreecategories:casestowhichtheUnitedStatesisaparty,whichincludesbothcivilcasesinwhichtheUnitedStatesisplaintiffordefendantandallprosecutionsforviolationoffederalcriminalstatutes:casesinvolvinga“federalquestion”,whichmeansaquestioninvolvingtheinterpretationoreffectofaprovisionoftheConstitutionorofafederalstatuteorregulation:casesinvolving“diversityofcitizenship”,thatis,suitsbetweencitizensofdifferentstatesofUnitedStates.8.federalcourt:Thehistoricaloriginsof“diversityofcitizenship”jurisdictionderivefromaconcernofformertimesthatacitizenofonestatemightnotbefairlytreatedinthecourtsofthestateofhisadversary’sresidence,andeventhisoldconcernisinapplicablewhenthedefendantis,sotospeak,suedonhisownhomegrounds.9.canbesecuredonlybya:petitionforawritofcertiorari”.AsamatterofSupremeCourtpractice,iffourormoreoftheninejusticesvotetotakethecase,thatis,tohearanddecideitonitsmerits,