Talk:Common law

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Common law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. England High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

Text or other creative content from this version of Common law was copied or moved into Common law legal systems in the present day. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The United States outlawed common law in 1812 in the Supreme Court case, 'United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812)'. Why is it still called a common law country? Lord Milner (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

United States v. Hudson. United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Congress must first enact a constitutional law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the federal courts jurisdiction over the offense in order for the court to render a conviction.

That event is a feature of common law. A court redefined law by a ruling that sets precedent. As that reads, it is limited to when a court may render a conviction. There is a lot more to common law than the rendering of convictions. Eg. All native indigenous law remains the law of the land until superseded by new law, whether legislated, or established by new precedent.

In terms of overturning any common law, the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin is quite limited, as it deals with international matters, not indigenous law. Through its recognition as precedent, it strengthens the principle of common law, in that the “defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article talks in several places about common law courts. But nowhere does it explain what a common law court is. 2602:306:BC65:4D59:C0F7:2E1C:E2F5:3D57 (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, a "common law court" is just a court that uses common law, or a court in a common law country. There's not much to add beyond that, but we could clarify that. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That seems to be accurate for how this term is (confusingly) used in this confusingly scoped article, but just for the benefit of anyone stumbling across this conversation in the future: in ordinary usage, "common law court" would refer to a "law court", i.e. a court that was not a court of equity and thus did not have the authority to grant equitable remedies such as injunctions. The gradual elimination of the law/equity distinction has made this a bit obscure to modern readers but see e.g. this 1919 article. Or of course one can always look to Blackstone.

There are at least four distinct encyclopedic meanings of "common law" -- (1) an unhelpful synonym for "case law"; (2) a legal tradition originating in medieval England and encompassing some dozens of modern countries, which ironically rely for the most part on statutory law; (3) a particular body of mostly-English customary law, as systematized by Coke, Blackstone, et al.; and (4) (as in "common law court") the opposite of equity. I think this article is mostly about 1 and 3 presently, although it's not always entirely clear and it's difficult to shake the impression that we've simply thrown all the different meanings into a blender. Although thorough reform would be a major job, I'd suggest it would be a good idea to remove the current uses of the phrase "common law court," which are at the very least unnecessary and unhelpful. -- Visviva (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Reassessed article to C-class. Article does not pass the B-class criteria #1: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

The clear and unmistakable evidence are found in the article and listed in the categories:

• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from August 2015
• Articles with unsourced statements from December 2023
• Articles that may contain original research from February 2024
• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from February 2024
• Articles needing additional references from July 2024

Appendices: These are important sections to aid in building the web. While this is a fundamental element of Wikipedia they are not required for aesthetics or article promotion. This means that size and relative importance should be observed per MOS:APPENDIX as noted in MOS:SEEALSO: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. a reasonable number is the only size limitation so eleven links are probably not excessive. Further reading does not discuss size only that citations should be used and Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links. Sixteen links may or may not be too lengthy.

Ah! "External links": This section has repeated mention to include no citation templates.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• Please note: WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. This more than implies that trimming (contesting) as maintenance is not subject to BRD. While general practice is usually three or four links is almost never an issue the section has come to be a somewhat accepted

This surely more than hints to size. Normal practice seems to indicate that three or maybe four links are not an issue. The section is being nudged to change link addition criteria above by using the section as a dumping ground. This is not WP:IAR as this requires consensus. Sometimes there are excessive links in multiple subsections that creates obvious CLUTTER (all that apply). Better article classification is not immune. This is considered consensus by silence.

Eleven links certainly exceed the above criteria. This becomes more pronounced when the appendices total 38 links. A solution is to trim the "External links" and resume our proverbial rat euthanization. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The map doesn't seem to acknowledge Cyprus as an independent country (has no letter over it) but either way it is the wrong colour. Cyprus operates a mixed common law/civil law system based on its history as a British colony. The source cited for the map says this itself. It should not be coloured civil law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-33346-48 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I noticed that quite recently, a user by the name of “Dawkin Verbier” did severe damage to this article. Not only has much significant and necessary information been removed, and not only has the article been filled with previously absent spelling and grammar mistakes, but the user seems to have made a particular effort to erase the connection between Roman Law and Common Law, and to frame all similarities in the present as imports from Civil Law. No legal scholar would dispute that Civil Law has been far more heavily influenced by Roman Law than has Common Law, but all would nonetheless acknowledge that Common Law has had significant exchange with Roman Law, which can be verified by cross-checking with the “Roman Law” article. The precedential and non-unified nature of Common Law is in fact more similar to pre-Late Imperial Roman Law than is Civil Law, though I acknowledge that this similarity is not due to direct influence. Dawkin Verbier’s main contributions to this website appear to be editing sex-based, particularly BDSM-based, articles, and I find it difficult to believe that such a perverse individual has much of value to say on the majority of topics, particularly one so important as this. By no means do I mean to say that anyone who is interested or partakes in all such practices is a pervert, merely that a person who spends the majority of their time on an immense repository of, admittedly often misinformed or propagandistic, human knowledge, editing articles on sex acts almost certainly is. I would suggest that this article be reverted to the last revision prior to Dawkin Verbier’s harmful revisionism. I would also suggest that if the user is found to have been performing similar mutilation of other articles, that they be permanently blocked from editing and/or banned. And before anyone raises the objection, no, I’m not an AI just because I write very formally, properly, and admittedly quite stiffly and stiltedly. On the contrary, I rather despise the d**n things. Thank you for considering my proposal.

Cheers! ~2026-43565-09 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply