State court (United States)

Generally, a single judicial officer, usually called a judge, exercises original jurisdiction by presiding over contested criminal or civil actions which culminate in trials, which may include empaneling a jury, although most matters stop short of reaching trial.

In matters that involve issues of federal law, the final decision of the state's highest court (including refusals to hear final appeals) may be appealed to the United States Supreme Court (which also has the discretion to refuse to hear them).

Although the United States is supposedly a highly litigious society, very few cases actually go to a jury verdict and a final judgment, let alone an appeal that results in a published appellate opinion.

Appellate courts in the United States, unlike their civil law counterparts, are generally not permitted to correct mistakes concerning the facts of the case on appeal, only mistakes of law, or findings of fact with no support in the trial court record.

[2] In states that still use justices of the peace or equivalent judicial officers, many judges of courts of limited jurisdiction are laypersons who never attended law school or passed a bar examination.

[12] A few states like California have unified all courts of general and inferior jurisdiction to make the judicial process more efficient.

[citation needed] However, as mere administrative divisions, departments can be rearranged at the discretion of each trial court's presiding judge in response to changing caseloads.

The American habit of electing state court judges originates with Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No.

78, in which Hamilton brought about a fundamental reconceptualization of the idea of separation of powers with respect to the judiciary.

Before Hamilton, both English and American people had thought of judges as mere appendages of royal authority, and that a government had only two branches, the executive and the legislative.

State court judges are usually distinguished attorneys who have had some political involvement, who are pursuing second careers on the bench.

The judiciary is not a separate profession in the American legal system as it is in many civil law jurisdictions.

The fact that all attorneys admitted to the practice of law are somewhat confusingly called "officers of the court" in U.S. legal practice is a legal fiction that calls attention to the special professional ethical obligations that all lawyers have to the court, and does not mean that all lawyers are employees or agents of the judicial branch.

State court judges are typically paid less, have smaller staffs, and handle larger caseloads than their counterparts in the federal judiciary.

A large share of the balance of civil cases in courts of limited jurisdiction involve temporary restraining orders, typically in non-marital domestic relations contexts, and name change petitions (generally for child custody reasons or related to taking an American alternative to a non-U.S. name, marriage and divorce related name changes are normally handled elsewhere).

[22] There have been times in U.S. history where almost all small claims, even if they arose under federal law, were required to be brought in state courts.

State court systems usually have expedited procedures for civil disputes involving small dollar amounts (typically under $5,000 to $25,000 depending upon the state court in question), most of which involve collection of small contractual debts (such as unpaid credit cards) and landlord-tenant matters.

Many states have small claims divisions where all parties proceed in civil cases without lawyers, often before a magistrate or justice of the peace.

Federal courts do not have parallel small claims procedures and apply the same civil rules to all civil cases, which makes federal court an expensive venue for a private party to pursue a claim for a small dollar amount.

In limited jurisdiction courts, it is not uncommon for an initial appearance to be made in person at which a settlement is often reached.

In general jurisdiction state courts, it is not uncommon for all pre-trial matters to be conducted outside the court, with attorneys negotiating scheduling matters, pre-trial examinations of witnesses taking place in lawyer's office through depositions, and a settlement conference conducted by a private mediator at the mediator's office.

For example, in many states there is no constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury before facing a criminal prosecution for a felony or infamous misdemeanor.

In this capacity they are responsible, for example, for making budget requests and administrative management decisions for the court system as a whole.

Rather, as instruments of separate sovereigns (under the U.S. system of dual sovereignty), they are two parallel sets of courts with different but often overlapping jurisdiction.

[citation needed] As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), no part of the federal Constitution actually grants federal courts the power to directly decide the content of state law.

Because of the aforementioned silence in the Constitution (as well as Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and successor sections), the Court cannot and never reviews decisions of state courts that depend entirely on the resolution of a state law issue; there must be an issue of federal law (such as the federal constitutional right to due process) implicit in the state case before the Court will even agree to hear it.