its a business law assignment

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 1/16

CHAPTER 3: THE JUDICIAL SYSTEMCHAPTER 3: THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LEGAL AND ETHICAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS Cohen

Federal Courts

Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction

U.S. Supreme Court - Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)

Critical Thinking Questions

Limitations on Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction

Other Areas of Federal Court Jurisdiction

State Courts

Civil v. Criminal Procedure

Supreme Court

PowerPoints

Federal Courts State Courts Supreme Court Civil  Procedure v. Criminal Procedure This chapter exams the federal court system including the Supreme Court and the state court system. The di�erences between civil and criminal procedure are also discussed herein.  

FEDERAL COURTS The general trial court of the federal judicial system is called the district court. The federal district court’s jurisdiction has been subject to signi�cant litigation where the Constitution has given the federal district court broad subject matter powers, while conversely congressional statutes have served to narrow the federal court’s jurisdiction. Regardless, the Supreme Court of the United States has been the �nal arbiter for any litigation on federal subject matter jurisdiction interpretation.   Article III in the Constitution creates federal judicial power which extends to nine classes of cases. The speci�c language states federal courts have jurisdiction over: “…all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; all cases a�ecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; controversies to which the United States is a party; controversies between two or more states; controversies between a state and citizens of another state; controversies between citizens of di�erent states; controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of di�erent states;

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 2/16

and controversies between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.” US Const. Art III, § 2.   Because the Constitution places limits on federal jurisdiction, federal courts have been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as “courts of limited jurisdiction,” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978), whereas state courts are presumed to have general subject matter jurisdiction over cases.   Further, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases a�ecting ambassadors and public ministers and cases in which a state is a party, which essentially delegates the remaining classes of cases within the judicial power of the Court’s district and appellate jurisdiction, unless Congress elects to amend such jurisdictional boundaries as it sees �t. Article III of the Constitution left for Congress to determine the distribution of federal jurisdiction within a system of federal courts and between the federal and state courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 provided for cases to enter a federal court through an original �ling, through removal of a case originally �led in state court, and through an appeal from the highest court of a state to the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the past two centuries, Congress has passed numerous statutes rede�ning the jurisdiction of the federal courts within the limits set by the Constitution. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court in its decisions has established additional rules and doctrines governing federal court jurisdiction, such as recently in Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010) where the court indicated that the Constitution “authorizes Congress . . . to determine the scope of federal courts’ jurisdiction within constitutional limits.” The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil or criminal cases as highlighted below.  

Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 3/16

The Constitution broadly allows federal courts under Article III to hear “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States…” US Const., Art III, Sec 2. The Supreme Court viewed this language broadly and gave the federal courts jurisdiction of cases where the “Constitution forms an ingredient (emphasis added) of the original cause, it is in the power of Congress to give the circuit courts jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved.”  Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824).   The Supreme Court’s language in Osborn v. Bank of the United States points to Congressional power to determine federal court jurisdiction. In 28 USC 1331 Congress limited federal subject matter jurisdiction to only those cases which "aris[e] under" federal law. This seemingly narrows the scope of federal subject matter jurisdiction from the broader constitutional interpretation. In American Well Works v. Layne, 241 US 257 (1916), the Supreme Court found that a "suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action," which was further explained to include only suits based on federal law, not state law, likely to provoke a federal law defense, and create federal question jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908).  

U.S. Supreme Court LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. MOTTLEY, 211 U.S. 149 (1908)

211 U.S. 149

No. 37. Submitted October 13, 1908.

Decided November 16, 1908.

  211 U.S. 149, 150] The appellees (husband and wife), being residents and citizens of Kentucky, brought this suit in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Kentucky against the appellant, a railroad company and a citizen of the same state. The

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 4/16

object of the suit was to compel the speci�c performance of the following contract: Louisville, Ky., Oct. 2d, 1871   The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, in consideration that E. L. Mottley and wife, Annie E. Mottley, have this day released company from all damages or claims for damages for injuries received by them on the 7th of September, 1871, in consequence of a collision of trains on the railroad of said company at Randolph's Station, Je�erson County, Kentucky, hereby agrees to issue free passes on said railroad and branches now existing or to exist, to said E. L. & Annie E. Mottley for the remainder of the present year, and thereafter to renew said passes annually during the lives of said Mottley and wife or either of them.   The bill alleged that in September, 1871, plainti�s, while passengers upon the defendant railroad, were injured by the defendant's negligence, and released their respective claims for damages in consideration of the agreement for transportation during their lives, expressed in the contract. It is alleged that the contract was performed by the defendant up to January 1, 1907, when the defendant declined to renew the passes. The bill then alleges that the refusal to comply with the contract was based solely upon that part of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892 ), which forbids the giving of free passes or free transportation. The bill further alleges: First, that the act of Congress referred to does not prohibit the giving of passes under the circumstances of this case; and, second, that, if the law is to be construed as prohibiting such passes, it is in con�ict with the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, because it deprives the plainti�s of their property without due process of law. The defendant demurred to the bill. The judge of the circuit court overruled the demurrer, entered a decree for the relief prayed for, and the defendant appealed directly to this court.   Mr. Henry L. Stone for appellant.

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 5/16

  Messrs. Lewis McQuown and Clarence U. McElroy for appellees.   Mr. L. A. Shaver for Interstate Commerce Commission as amicus curiae.   Mr. Justice Moody, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:   Two questions of law were raised by the demurrer to the bill, were brought here by appeal, and have been argued before us. They are, �rst, whether that part of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), which forbids the giving of free passes or the collection of any di�erent compensation for transportation of passengers than that speci�ed in the tari� �led, makes it unlawful to perform a contract for transportation of persons who, in good faith, before the passage of the act, had accepted such contract in satisfaction of a valid cause of action against the railroad; and, second, whether the statute, if it should be construed to render such a contract unlawful, is in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We do not deem it necessary, however, to consider either of these questions, because, in our opinion, the court below was without jurisdiction of the cause. Neither party has questioned that jurisdiction, but it is the duty of this court to see to it that the jurisdiction of the circuit court, which is de�ned and limited by statute, is not exceeded. This duty we have frequently performed of our own motion. Mans�eld, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (Cites intentionally omitted).   There was no diversity of citizenship, and it is not and cannot be suggested that there was any ground of jurisdiction, except that the case was 'suit . . . arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.' 25 Stat. at L. 434, chap. 866, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 509. It is the settled interpretation of these words, as used in this statute, conferring jurisdiction, that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 6/16

plainti�'s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. It is not enough that the plainti� alleges some anticipated defense to his cause of action, and asserts that the defense is invalidated by some provision of the Constitution of the United States. Although such allegations show that very likely, in the course of the litigation, a question under the Constitution would arise, they do not show that the suit, that is, the plainti�'s original cause of action, arises under the Constitution. In Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U.S. 454, 38 L. ed. 511, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 654, the plainti�, the state of Tennessee, brought suit in the circuit court of the United States to recover from the defendant certain taxes alleged to be due under the laws of the state. The plainti� alleged that the defendant claimed an immunity from the taxation by virtue of its charter, and that therefore the tax was void, because in violation of the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which forbids any state from passing a law impairing the obligation of contracts. The cause was held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court, the court saying, by Mr. Justice Gray (p. 464): 'A suggestion of one party, that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws.' Again, in Boston & M. Consol. Copper & S. Min. Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co. 188 U.S. 632, 47 L. ed. 626, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434, the plainti� brought suit in the circuit court of the United States for the conversion of copper ore and for an injunction against its continuance. The plainti� then alleged, for the purpose of showing jurisdiction, in substance, that the defendant would set up in defense certain laws of the United States. The cause was held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court, the court saying, by Mr. Justice Peckham (pp. 638, 639):   'It would be wholly unnecessary and improper, in order to prove complainant's cause of action, to go into any matters of defense which the defendants might possibly set up, and then attempt to reply to such defense, and thus, if possible, to show that a Federal question might or probably would arise in the course of the trial of the case.

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 7/16

To allege such defense and then make an answer to it before the defendant has the opportunity to itself plead or prove its own defense is inconsistent with any known rule of pleading, so far as we are aware, and is improper.   'The rule is a reasonable and just one that the complainant in the �rst instance shall be con�ned to a statement of its cause of action, leaving to the defendant to set up in his answer what his defense is, and, if anything more than a denial of complainant's cause of action, imposing upon the defendant the burden of proving such defense.   'Conforming itself to that rule, the complainant would not, in the assertion or proof of its cause of action, bring up a single Federal question. The presentation of its cause of action would not show that it was one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 211 U.S. 149. 'The only way in which it might be claimed that a Federal question was presented would be in the complainant's statement of what the defense of defendants would be, and complainant's answer to such defense. Under these circumstances the case is brought within the rule laid down in Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, supra. That case has been cited and approved many times since.'   The interpretation of the act which we have stated was �rst announced in Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U.S. 286, 32 L. ed. 543, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 173, and has since been repeated and applied in Colorado Cent. Consol. Min. Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138, 142 (Cites intentionally omitted). The application of this rule to the case at bar is decisive against the jurisdiction of the circuit court.   It is ordered that the judgment be reversed and the case remitted to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.  

Critical Thinking Questions The Supreme Court wrote that “The object of the suit was to compel the speci�c performance of (a) contract…” 

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 8/16

Simply stated, this lawsuit was over a breach of contract. Based on the court’s opinion, does this type of cause of action give rise to a federal question where the federal courts would have subject matter jurisdiction? Does it matter that the Mottley’s believed that the defendant’s defense to its lawsuit was a federal statute? What language in the above case indicates the Supreme Court’s opinion on this very question?   Is there an instance where a breach of contract case would actually give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction? And if so, please think of examples.  

Limitations on Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction In Mottley, the Court wrote that the plainti�’s complaint must be “well-pleaded” in order to establish that the suit actually arises under federal law thusly giving the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction. If the suit is not “well- pleaded”, then the federal court has no jurisdiction.Furthermore, the case must past the substantiality test.   In a claim involving federal law, the federal courts will lack subject matter jurisdiction “…when the claim is ‘insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as to not involve a federal controversy.’” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) citing Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974). The standard of review under the substantiality test is considered rigorous and if the federal claim has any foundation, it is likely that federal jurisdiction exists. Lastly, the plainti�’s claims, when “well-pleaded” and substantial, must have federal law as the main basis of the claim(s) or the the federal court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. This is at the heart of “centrality.” In Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005), the Supreme Court opines that a case arises under federal law providing the federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction when a federal law creates the cause of action. But the Court in Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v.

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 9/16

Darue Eng’g & Mfg went on to state that a case may arise under federal law in “certain . . . state-law claims that implicate signi�cant federal issues.”   

Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction Diversity of Citizenship Jurisdiction applies to quali�ed cases in which the parties involved are from di�erent states and the claims for damages are in excess of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Figure 3.1) If both parties agree, these types of cases can also be heard in a state court which also has jurisdiction. This provides an example where the state and federal courts each have the jurisdiction to hear a certain case, which is referred to as concurrent jurisdiction.   However, the point of diversity jurisdiction in federal courts is to ensure a fair trial when one party believes that a state court might be biased against the nonstate litigant so the federal courts “open … doors to those who might otherwise su�er from local prejudice against out-of-state parties.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010).   And although the Constitution is silent on this issue, the Supreme Court requires complete diversity. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 530 (1967), the Court indicated “minimal diversity is su�cient to meet the requirement of the Constitution …. But (complete diversity) is (required).” This has been interpreted to mean that diversity jurisdiction only exists only if there is no plainti� and or no defendant who are citizens of the same state. Exceptions do exist to this general rule but is beyond the scope of this book.  

  DIVERSITY JURISDICTION CONSIDERATIONS

Complete

Diversity

No parties can have the same citizenship / residence to a state

Time of

Testing

At the time the Plainti� originally �les the complaint, diversity of the parties must be well pleaded

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 10/16

  DIVERSITY JURISDICTION CONSIDERATIONS

Parties

Tested

Essential, named parties in the lawsuit; can sever a non-essential party to maintain diversity (Rule 19)

Evidence of

Citizenship

Court can review materials submitted by parties outside the pleadings to adjudicate the citizenship of parties; main evidence - domicile, which is the �xed home

Court

Involvement

Courts align the parties to determine whether there is diversity jurisdiction even though the plainti� has pled diversity.

Associations If the suit is against an unincorporated association, then the Court will look at each member of the association to determine diversity

Corporations Corporation is a citizen in its state of incorporation, and if a corporation is incorporated in multiple states, then it is generally held to be a citizen of each state for diversity purposes; corporation is also a citizen where it has a principle place(s) of business

Burden of

Proof of

Diversity

The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of proof that diversity requirements have been met

Amount of

Controversy

Must be greater than $75,000 as pled in the complaint, to a legal certainty, may include legal fees and punitive damages, but the perspective on the damages whether its plainti� or defendant's view is split

Figure 3.1: Diversity Jurisdiction over-view

 

Other Areas of Federal Court Jurisdiction A case involving the United States as a party is only allowed to be held in a federal court giving the federal court exclusive jurisdiction. The Federal Court system is divided into 11 circuits with 2 other special circuits to

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 11/16

combine for 13 total circuits. See Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2 below.   The 1st through the 11th circuits are composed of the 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The 12th circuit is called the D.C. Circuit composed only of Washington, D.C. and the 13th circuit is the Federal Circuit, also composed of Washington, D.C. The 13th circuit was created to handle special cases such as patent disputes and appeals of the Court of Claims and Court of International Trade. Within each state is at least one federal judicial district. Every district has a judge and each district is divided depending upon the size of the population. In total, there are 94 districts within the �fty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Most cases within a circuit are heard by a panel of three circuit judges, only rarely will a case be heard by all federal district judges and this is referred to as en banc. All cases decided in the Federal district courts can be appeal dint eh U.S. courts of appeals.    FEDERAL

COURT

CIRCUIT

STATES

FEDERAL

COURT

LOCATION

# OF

DISTRICTS

1st Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico

Boston, MA 5

2nd Connecticut, New York, Vermont

New York, NY

6

3rd Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands

Philadelphia, PA

6

4th Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

Richmond, VA

9

5th Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

New Orleans, LA

9

6th Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee

Cincinnati, OH

9

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 12/16

FEDERAL

COURT

CIRCUIT

STATES

FEDERAL

COURT

LOCATION

# OF

DISTRICTS

7th Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin

Chicago, IL 7

8th Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska

St. Louis, MO

10

9th Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands

San Francisco, CA

15

10th Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma

Denver, CO 8

11th Florida, Georgia, Alabama

Atlanta, GA 9

D.C. Circuit

Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

1

Federal Circuit

Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

 

Table 3.1 Federal Circuit Courts and District Courts  

Figure 3.2: Graphic provided by the United States Department of Justice.

Each district is color coded, for example, the 6th District is light brown

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 13/16

and comprises MI, OH, KY and TN.

 

STATE COURTS The state court structure is hierarchal just as the federal court system with the state supreme court at the top.  Each state court has a di�erent overall structure but the general structure is similar to that of the federal court system. The State Supreme Court is the highest followed by its court of appeals, then trial courts, and by the lesser courts such as “municipal courts” as they are called in the state of Ohio.  The state trial court, called the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, will have jurisdiction over criminal felony cases and civil matters in excess of $15,000.   The municipal court will have jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases and civil matters that are less than $15,000. More important cases are those moved up the court hierarchy.  Lesser cases like tra�c o�enses or minor misdemeanors are handled by municipalities (cities) who have their own court.   State appellate courts serve the same function as the U.S. court of appeals, which is to provide an appeals process for cases that have gone through trial.   And state supreme courts are similar to the U.S. Supreme Court in that they examine major issue that arise from trial court and then the appeals court.   These courts are not required to hear any case that is petitioned to the court, but they do often hear cases where the ruling of law has major impact on a party, litigant, criminally accused or precedent.  After the state supreme court has rendered a decision in a case, then the case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if the case involves a federal question or the constitutional rights of a party.   

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 14/16

Figure 3.3 State Court Hierarchy (Ohio Example)  

SUPREME COURT At the top of the U.S. federal court systems is the Supreme Court, which as state previously was created through Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Court is the �nal arbiter of appeals in the federal system. The U.S. Supreme court handles appeals from the U.S. court of appeals, but does so on a very selective basis.  The number of cases appealed to the Supreme Court annually has been estimated to be around 7,000.   For the Supreme Court to hear a case, it would issue a writ of certiori, a decision to hear the case, in less than 2% of those hearing requests.   Many of these cases where a writ is grant, the Supreme Court may simply grant plenary review and issue an opinion disposing of the case.  Some cases are granted a full hearing. The Journal of the Supreme Court provides relevant data in this area but usually lags a year behind with relevant annual data.  So the information regarding U.S. Supreme Court activity for 2015 will generally be published in 2016.  Information is updated as of October for each relevant year.  For more information on this, see https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/journal.aspx.   The U.S. Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction in certain matters, as designated by Article III of the Constitution such as when more than one state is a party,

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 15/16

or cases involving ambassadors or other public ministers.  U.S. Const. art. III Sec. 2.   Further, the U.S. Supreme Court consists of nine judges (except when a judge has retired or died and there is a vacancy) who have been nominated to become justices by the president when an opening exists and the Senate con�rms the nomination. Justices have the position for life.  The president’s power to choose a new justice has major impact on our country and often can shape the future of jurisprudence.   President’s often can leave a great legacy in the country based on the justices nominated and approved by the Senate.    The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and its decisions are precedent for every other court in the country. For a broader view of this area, please refer to Chapter 2 of this text.

Figure 3 Federal Court Hiearchy  

CIVIL V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

11/29/2018 Chapter 3 - WebCOM™ 2.0

https://utoledo.grtep.com/index.cfm/business/page/ch3 16/16

WebCOM™ 2.0 is a trademark of Great River Learning. All rights reserved. © 2002-2018.

The court systems handle both civil trials (e.g. breach of contract, negligence) and criminal trials (e.g. murder, fraud).  Civil cases involve private parties, usually, where one party is harmed and is seeking redress of harm (damages) from the other party.   In criminal cases, the government is the plainti� and the accused party is the defendant.   Trials and the appeals process occur under both civil matters and criminal matters.  Both civil procedure and criminal procedure are guaranteed as part of due process in the 6th,  7th  and 14th amendments to the constitution.   The 6th amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial in criminal prosecution, by an impartial jury, informed of criminal charges, to confront witness and to compel witnesses to appear in court and to get assistance from counsel.   The 7th amendment essentially guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling �ndings of fact by juries in federal civil trials.      The 14th amendment thusly applies the 6th amendment to the states but the 7th amendment is one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights that has yet to been fully incorporated.   Both civil and criminal procedure are signi�cant to trial attorneys, and it takes years to fully understand the process for either.