Ross, S. v. CCP of Montgomery County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an initial tribunal may lawfully enter judgment without a full jury trial if the law permits a subsequent “trial [anew] by jury, at the request of either party, in the appellate court”
• concluding from these sources that the explicit reference to the “common law” in the Seventh Amendment, referred to the rules of the common law of England, not the rules as modified by local or state practice
• commenting on the evidence recognized to be within the trial judge’s discretion; this case has not been overruled
• “a known and settled” construction of a state law is deemed adopted by Congress
• “[T]he seventh amendment, . . . had in view the rules of the common law of England, and not the rules of that law as modified by local statute or usage in any of the states.”
• Seventh amendment “does not prescribe at what stage of an action a trial by jury must, if demanded, be had; or what conditions may be imposed upon the demand of such a trial, consistently with preserving the right to it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).