A suit in common law which is being tried by jury

This article is about a suit in common law which is being tried by jury. The case is not a federal case, but it resembles the right expressed in the Seventh Amendment. Note that the "speedy trial" will begin on February 22, 2010.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Johnson County faces damages trial in suit about detention center

Kansas City Business Journal - by Steve Vockrodt Staff Writer

A Kansas City construction company will ask for $1.8 million in damages as part of a lawsuit concerning its work on a Johnson County detention center project.

A Johnson County District Court judge ruled Oct. 6 that Building Construction Enterprises Inc. is entitled to a judgment. A jury trial scheduled for Feb. 22 will determine what damages BCE can obtain from the Public Building Commission, an arm of the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners.

The county disputes the judgment and could file an appeal once the trial is completed.

. . .

svockrodt@bizjournals.com | 816-777-2206

Amendment VII

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Comments by Nate Segal

The Seventh Amendment establishes a citizen's rights in civil suits. Until now the Bill of Rights addressed criminal cases.

If a person is called into federal court with a civil case against them, judges must allow the case to be presented before a jury if the person wishes.  Americans had enjoyed this right during colonial days (O'Connor & Sabato, p. 81).

When Article III of the Constitution established the federal judiciary, jury trials were specified for criminal cases. "The Trial of all Crimes ... shall be by Jury." The Constitution is silent on civil cases, so the Seventh Amendment preserves and affirms trials by jury for civil cases.

Once a judge and jury have issued a judgment — "fact" — the ruling stands in all federal courts.

Common law allows for appeals of judgments, which is addressed in Article III of the constitution itself. An appeal is an attempt to change the verdict — "fact" — of the case.

Congress changed the threshold from $20 to $75,000. Perhaps this higher threshold keeps case loads in our federal courts manageable. Would we want to lower this current threshold? Would we want to hire more judges and staff and also build larger court facilities? These expenses would come from our pockets as higher taxes. No thanks. It's not broken, so don't fix it.