![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Customer Support: (702) 222-9076 |
|
|
|
![]() Save Money on our Packages: |
A Chancery Court for Nevada: Definition, Costs, and Benefits
The paper defines how a chancery court differs from a common law court and from business courts, and explains the costs and benefits that a chancery court would bring to the State of Nevada. It explains how the Nevada court is currently set up, and how a business court has already been implemented here. In order to illustrate the potential benefits of a chancery, a comparison is made between the State of Delaware, which has had a chancery court for over 200 years; and Nevada, which has never had one. Finally, it addresses the strengths and weaknesses of a business court when compared to a chancery court. Making Nevada a chancery state would benefit more than business: it would impact positively three other stakeholder groups: judges, taxpayers, and litigants in all Nevada courts. What a Chancery Court Is Chancery law is based on the concept of "equity," and is founded on the English common law tradition, which is used in England and the US. It supplements the strict application of the “rule of law” where its application would result in unusually harsh punishment. It is sometimes mistakenly contrasted with "statutory law," which is law made up by decree of the legislature; and "common law," which is law made through the rulings of judges, citing precedents in subsequent legal action. There are three main distinctions between "equity" or chancery law, and common law. The first is in the remedies available to litigants. In general, common law courts award monetary damages. Chancery courts, though, can enter injunctions to act or refrain from acting. Often, this is more valuable to a corporation than monetary damages. Equity courts offer this solution more easily than common law courts; although common law courts can also offer writs, they are harder to get and more difficult to use. A second difference is the absence of a jury. Equity judgments are handed down only by judges, according to the law, and "matters of fact" are not decided by juries. The right to a trial by jury in a federal civil case is guaranteed by the Constitution, but it is not used in chancery courts. Regarding trial by jury, the kind of court that is chosen to hear a particular plaintiff often depends on what remedy the plaintiff seeks. In general, if he is looking for monetary damages or certain kinds of relief, the plaintiff is also guaranteed the right to a jury trial. If, however, the plaintiff seeks modification of a contract, injunction, declaratory judgment, specific performance, or some other kind of non-financial ruling, the case would go to a business or chancery court. A third important difference is the origin of the rules covering the decisions. In common law, reference is made to written statues and the interpretations of them. In equity law, though, the emphasis is more on "fairness" and "flexibility." At the outset, equity law did not have fixed guidelines, and early critics harped on this distinction. Since the 17th century, however, this kind of law has lost much of its flexibility, and its rulings are now frequently based on precedents, just as with common law. The difference between what’s "legal" and what’s "equitable" remains, however, and it is an important distinction to corporations. The push to bring a chancery court to Nevada is sometimes framed by its opponents as a special favor to business, at the expense of the rest of the state’s citizens. An examination of the available sources has shown this not to be the case. At least three stakeholders in this debate besides business would be positively impacted by the addition of a chancery court to the state’s judicial system. First... Want to know more? Download the White Paper "A Chancery Court for Nevada: Definition, Costs, and Benefits" for just $49.95. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Free Report:
Click Here to learn more.
|