This term was derived from the Latin "secutus", the past participle of "sequi" meaning to attend or follow.
[3] Similarly, the word "sue", derives from the old French "suir, sivre" meaning to pursue or follow after.
[4] Rules of criminal or civil procedure govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the common law adversarial system of dispute resolution.
Failure to comply with procedural rules may result in serious limitations that can affect the ability of one to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or even lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit altogether.
About 98 percent of civil cases in the United States federal courts are resolved without a trial.
In reality, however, courts typically have some power to sever claims and parties into separate actions if it is more efficient to do so.
[7] Cases such as this illustrate the need for more comprehensive information than mere internet searches when researching legal decisions.
In a handful of jurisdictions (notably, the U.S. state of New York) a lawsuit begins when one or more plaintiffs properly serve a summons and complaint upon the defendants.
An answer from the defendant in response to the claims made against him/her, can also include additional facts or a so-called "excuse" for the plead.
Usually the pleadings are drafted by a lawyer, but in many courts persons can file papers and represent themselves, which is called appearing pro se.
Discovery is meant to eliminate surprises, clarify what the lawsuit is about, and also to make the parties decide if they should settle or drop frivolous claims or defenses.
At this point, the parties may also engage in pretrial motions to exclude or include particular legal or factual issues before trial.
There are numerous motions that either party can file throughout the lawsuit to terminate it "prematurely"—before submission to the judge or jury for final consideration.
In a civil case, the judge is allowed at this time to make changes to the verdict that the jury came up with by either adding on or reducing the punishment.
Some jurisdictions, notably the United States, but prevalent in many other countries, prevent parties from relitigating the facts on appeal, due to a history of unscrupulous lawyers deliberately reserving such issues in order to ambush each other in the appellate courts (the "invited error" problem).
The idea is that it is more efficient to force all parties to fully litigate all relevant issues of fact before the trial court.
When the lawsuit is finally resolved, or the allotted time to appeal has expired, the matter is res judicata, meaning the plaintiff may not bring another action based on the same claim again.
When a final judgment is entered, the plaintiff is usually barred under the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating any of the issues, even under different legal theories.
Indigent judgment-proof defendants are no longer imprisoned; debtor's prisons have been outlawed by statute, constitutional amendment, or international human rights treaties in the vast majority of common law jurisdictions.
The fusion of common law and equity in England in the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 led to the collapse of that distinction, so it became possible to speak of a "lawsuit."
In England and Wales the term "claim" is far more common; the person initiating proceedings is called the claimant.
[15] England and Wales began to turn away from traditional common law terminology with the Rules of the Supreme Court (1883), in which the "statement of claim" and "defence" replaced the traditional complaint and answer as the pleadings by which parties placed their case at issue before the trial court.
American terminology is slightly different, in that the term "claim" refers only to a particular count or cause of action alleged in a complaint.
In other words, the terms "claimant" and "plaintiff" carry substantially different connotations of formality in American English, in that only the latter risks an award of costs in favor of an adversary in a lawsuit.
Particularly in the United States, plaintiffs and defendants who lack financial resources for litigation or other attorney's fees may be able to obtain legal financing.
Legal financing companies can provide a cash advance to litigants in return for a share of the ultimate settlement or award.
Litigants do not have to repay the cash advance with monthly payments, but do have to fill out an application so that the legal financing company can review the merits of the case.
Often, plaintiffs who were injured or forced to leave their jobs still have mortgages, rent, medical expenses, or other bills to pay.