Seventh Amendment- Suits at Common Law

"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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law".

In my opinion,the seventh amendment expands the right to a trial by a jury to people involved in federal civil cases, not just criminal as in the fifth amendment. In these sort of cases one party is suing the other and seeking punative damages for some harm done to them or a court order banning the other party from doing something. In addition, to win the case the prosecution must not prove that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt but just more than 50 percent. Lastly, people must realize that the seventh amendment only gives people the right to a trial by jury in federal courts, not state courts.





My Opinion: I chose this video because of the last couple of sections were it shows the photos of the violator of the seventh amendment. I think it is imperative with any law that we understand it enough to apply it to today's controversies and identify violators. Just because someone is famous and in the public eye does not exempt them to following all of the Constitution's laws.



Tobacco Sees Way to Block A Big Lawsuit By Consumers
By GLENN COLLINS
Published: Monday, March 20, 1995


Lawyers for the seven American tobacco companies facing the largest class action suit in history said yesterday that their defense had been significantly strengthened by a Federal appellate court's ruling late last week on a case that pits hemophilia patients against drug companies.The lawyers said that the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, provides a precedent to invalidate the legal assault brought by a group of current and former smokers that could cost the tobacco companies billions of dollars in damages. That opinion, filed late on Friday, was studied intensely over the weekend by tobacco lawyers. The ruling reversed a lower-court decision permitting a class action by 10,000 hemophilia patients -- or their surviving families -- who had been infected by H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. The plaintiffs were suing five international drug companies that had supplied the patients with blood-clotting medicine, asserting that the companies knowingly distributed clotting products contaminated with H.I.V. The suit against the tobacco manufacturers contends that the companies, their related units and the Tobacco Institute, an industry group, had concealed knowledge that nicotine was addictive and had manipulated nicotine levels in cigarettes to keep customers addicted. The companies are the American Tobacco Company, the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Philip Morris Inc., Liggett & Myers Inc., the Lorillard Tobacco Company and the United States Tobacco Company. On March 8, the tobacco companies appealed the ruling of a Federal District judge in New Orleans, Okla B. Jones 2d, who cleared the way last month for a class action, the first in a Federal court against the tobacco industry. The suit currently names four plaintiffs who, their lawyers said, would represent all Americans who are or once were addicted to cigarettes. The Seventh Circuit, where the drug companies were challenged, has no jurisdiction over the Fifth Circuit, where the tobacco class action, known as the Castano case after one of the plaintiffs, is proceeding. But "the two cases are very similar," said Prof. Kenneth Abraham, a specialist in insurance and tort law at the University of Virginia. "The decision of a Seventh Circuit appeals court doesn't have a binding effect on the Fifth Circuit, but it is likely to exercise a lot of gravitational force." Wall Street has followed the Castano case closely for its potential to cost the tobacco companies billions in liability damages, affecting not only the equity of the companies but their ability to do business. "Virtually all of the issues that we are concerned about in Castano are present in the blood case," said Daniel W. Donahue, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for R. J. Reynolds. "And the judge universally decided them in favor of the position that we take in Castano." He added: "I think we will look back on the Chicago ruling as a watershed event in the Castano case, from our perspective." A consortium of close to 60 law firms has gathered in New Orleans to represent the plaintiffs. "The tobacco companies are celebrating prematurely if they think this decision will lend them any measure of comfort in the Castano case," said Dianne M. Nast, a lawyer who presented the plaintiffs' arguments for both the tobacco and drug-company class actions. The ruling in the drug case is "specific to its own facts," she said, and both cases are "very different." She added that the drug ruling "in no way controls what happens in the Fifth Circuit," adding that a "strong dissent" to the Seventh Circuit opinion should further dilute the impact.The tobacco companies, which have never had to pay any monetary penalties because of a court ruling, deny that cigarettes are addictive, since so many Americans have stopped smoking.As many as 40 million current smokers, as well as an estimated 50 million people who have quit smoking, are eligible for inclusion in the tobacco class action, the plaintiffs' lawyers say. The lawsuit was filed last March in the United States Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of Dianne Castano, who is the widow of a smoker, and three other plaintiffs. In both the tobacco and drug class actions, the plaintiffs had won approval for trial plans that deal with common issues of negligence first, in a class action in a single Federal court. In a secondary series of trials, potential damages could subsequently be assessed in other local courts. But the three-judge appeals panel in Chicago voted 2 to 1 to reverse, or decertify, such a class-action proceeding against the drug companies that had been approved in August by Federal Judge John G. Grady. The five companies named in the suit are Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc., the Armour Pharmaceutical Company, Miles Inc., the Baxter Health Care Corporation and the Alpha Therapeutic Corporation. In his opinion reversing the class action against the pharmaceutical companies, Judge Richard A. Posner of the appellate court wrote that Judge Grady had "exceeded his authority" and that issues of negligence against the companies could not be decided in a class-action trial because the 50 states have different laws on the subject. Thus, Judge Posner wrote, it would be impossible to adopt a single legal standard on the negligence issue. In addition, Judge Posner found that damages and other issues could not be weighed in secondary trials because these issues were closely interlinked with the initial determination of negligence. Therefore, a two-stage trial denied the right of the drug companies "to a jury trial in Federal civil cases, conferred by the Seventh Amendment," Judge Posner wrote, referring to the amendment to the Constitution that prevents defendants from being subjected to inconsistent results from more than one jury. David Shrager, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, told The Associated Press that he would seek a rehearing next week before the full seven-member appeals court.
In the tobacco case, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed a discovery plan last week with Judge Jones. The lawyers have said they will be looking for more "smoking gun" memos, akin to documents that emerged last year in Congressional hearings.


My Opinion: I chose this article because it is a very good example of a federal civil case. The plaintiff's are suing the tobacco companies to reclaim damages the feel were negligently passed on to them from the tobacco companies. They are trying to prove this based on a previous case dealing with drug companies and HIV sufferers. This is called common law. As always the tobacco companies are trying to figure a way out. The plaintiff's are seeking punitive damages as well which is a key aspect in any common law case.