NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/legal/21934

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!tzs
From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Date: 2 Jan 1993 00:24:56 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In addition to the U.S. Constitution, you have to look at your state
constitution and state laws to determined what English law is applicable.

For example, Code section 1-10 of Virginia says that "The common law of
England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of
Rights and Constitution of this State, shall continue in full force within
the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General
Assembly."

Is there any original state that did NOT keep English common law when that
state gained independence?

Where did new states get their common law from?  If there was a dispute over,
say, negligence, in a pre-state territory, what law applied?  Most states
became states before _Erie_, so I would guess that Federal common law developed
and was applied in these situations, but what happened after _Erie_?  I would
guess that _Erie_ pretty much stopped development of Federal common law in
areas such as torts, so what happened in states formed after _Erie_?  Did
they start out with old Federal common law, from before _Erie_, or what?

--Tim Smith