Refusing to move to a third-class carriage while holding a valid ticket for the whites-only first-class compartment, the great future leader was pushed off the train in the middle of the night, in the middle of winter, his luggage hastily thrown after him. I was afraid for my very life. I entered the dark waiting-room. There was a white man in the room.
Civil procedure The rules of every procedural system reflect choices between worthy goals. Different systems, for example, may primarily seek truth, or fairness between the parties, or a speedy resolution, or a consistent application of legal principles. Sometimes these goals will be compatible with each other, but sometimes they will clash.
When this happens, the rules of the system reveal the priorities it has established among these values. One system centralizes responsibility for developing and deciding disputes and maintaining some consistency in legal rules, giving primary responsibility Duty of civil disobedience state officials—i.
The other path decentralizes power, giving the parties and their representatives primary responsibility for presenting factual evidence and legal arguments to a judge and sometimes also a jury, whose role is generally restricted to deciding which party has presented the better argument.
The first system, usually referred to as civil-law procedure, is often associated with Roman law. The second system, usually called common-law procedure, is often found in countries that derive their legal system from that of early modern England.
Both systems have characteristic strengths and weaknesses. Civil-law procedure, emphasizing the responsibility of a professional judiciary, may reduce the likelihood that the outcome of lawsuits will turn on the wealth of the parties and increase the likelihood that outcomes and rules will remain consistent; the same characteristics, however, may leave the parties feeling that they have not been fairly heard and that the facts have not been adequately probed.
Common-law procedure, emphasizing party control of litigation, may leave the parties more content that their particular dispute, in all its factual complexity, has been heard, is thriftier with governmental funds, and depends less on a specially trained judiciary.
It may, however, lead the parties to spend large sums on litigation expenses and may result in legal rulings that are somewhat untidy and inconsistent. Within these two broad family groupings, procedural systems must make other choices. Who will bear the cost of litigation?
What depth of factual investigation characterizes ordinary litigation? How flexibly may claims and defenses be revised and how easily may additional parties be added?
Once a lawsuit is concluded, how broadly does it preclude subsequent litigation between the parties? One seeking to compare the civil process of different legal cultures must also understand that procedural rules interact with choices about the shape of government, access to lawyers, the level of investment in the legal system, and the competence, honesty, and diligence of public officials.
A procedural system can have fine rules but will not work well if judges are corrupt or officials refuse to enforce unpopular judgments. Conversely, diligent and honest officials and lawyers can compensate for suboptimal procedural regimes. Historical development Roman law and the Islamic legal tradition Roman law went through three phases, the last two of which exercised long-lasting influences.
The first phase required strict compliance with highly formal rules of pleading. During the second, classical period, beginning in the 1st century bce, a more flexible formulary procedure developed. Lawsuits were divided into two parts, the first being devoted to defining the issues, the second to deciding the case.
The suit began with the parties presenting their claims and defenses orally to a judicial official called a praetorwhose main function was to hear the allegations of the parties and then to frame a formula or instruction applicable to the issue presented by the parties.
The praetor did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, with the consent of the parties, he selected from a list of approved individuals a private individual judex whose duty it was to hear witnesses, examine the proof, and render a decision in accordance with the applicable law contained in the formula.
The procedure facilitated growth and change in the law: This two-phase process allowed expert development of law while ensuring that the parties themselves would choose the person who rendered a final, unappealable decision in their case.
Civil procedure in classical ancient Rome thus distinctively combined professional and lay participation, state authority, and voluntary choice of arbiters by the parties.
Its ideals and some of its mechanisms had a marked influence on later legal development in Europe though to a lesser extent in England and, through borrowing, on some modern Asian legal systems.
The formulary system so called from the formulas issued by the praetorswith its separation of fact-finding and determination of the law, operated in Rome but not in the many provinces conquered by the Romans. Instead, provincial administrative officials rendered justice under general administrative powers.
In the late imperial period, the provincial procedure displaced classical procedure in Rome itself. In this third phase of Roman law, the creative role of the praetor came to an end, the formulas were abolished, and lawsuits were no longer divided into two phases, instead being initiated by a written pleading.From a general summary to chapter summaries to explanations of famous quotes, the SparkNotes Civil Disobedience Study Guide has everything you need to ace quizzes, tests, and essays.
, Billie. Letter, 2 January Accession 4 pages. Letter, 2 January , from a soldier named Billie at Petersburg, Virginia, to his sister Maggie describing the wintery weather conditions around Petersburg during the siege of We're hoping to rely on our loyal readers rather than erratic ads.
To support Open Culture's continued operation, please consider making a donation. Recent Examples on the Web. Many on the left cheered the efforts, citing the Trump administration’s policies toward immigrants as attacks on human rights that deserved the same sort of public displays of disobedience that defined the civil rights and gay rights movements.
— Washington Post, "Tempers raised by immigration issue give way to insults," 26 June Many on the left cheered the. The definition of the term duty given by lexicographers is: "something that is due", "obligatory service"; "something that one is bound to perform or to avoid".
In this sense we speak of a duty, duties; and, in general, the sum total of these duties is denoted by the abstract term in the singular. Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable .