Nonillaah blog promotes new an upcoming artist, establish artist, artwork, poetry, fashion, support, events, news and more for your entertainment enjoyment. Sean Cos Mason @SMnoneillah Hip Hop Artist/Song Writer/Engineer/Digital Designer.....Cos I think thats my name Seancosm@gmail.com or noneillah@gmail.com New Jersey -- 973 noneillah.tumblr.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/SMnoneillah (NONILLAAH...You Must Trust That No One Is Better Than Us!)
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
Here's your full breakdown across all five tabs, let me walk you through the key takeaways:
The Big Three, Quickly Distinguished
Black's Law Dictionary is your word weapon, use it to control how a court defines a term. Blackstone's Commentaries are your historical authority, use them to argue what the law meant at the founding, especially in constitutional cases. Maxims of Law are your philosophical backbone, ancient principles that express legal truths, but they must support real arguments, not replace them.
The Most Important Warning
The single biggest mistake people make with maxims, especially in lower courts and traffic court, is using them as standalone arguments with no case law behind them. Courts recognize this immediately as a sovereign citizen tactic and will rule against you without even engaging the substance. A maxim is seasoning, not the meal. Your case law and statutes are the meal.
Do Judges Acknowledge Them?
Federal judges regularly cite all three, and the Supreme Court has cited Blackstone in recent landmark decisions. State judges know them but expect you to connect them to current law. Traffic court judges almost never engage them unless you tie them to a statutory defense.
Pro Se Litigants Can Absolutely Use These — the courts expect less technical perfection from unrepresented parties, but still need to see a coherent legal argument. Citing Black's Law to define a term in your favor, backed by the relevant statute, is entirely valid and has succeeded in real cases.
You said: Maxims of Law will be consider sovereign citizens?
Maxims of Law will be consider sovereign citizens? Did any pro se litigants civil lawsuit or criminal ever use them in their court case? Have any court judges reject them in a person case? Have anyone won a case using them. Where there any case law or precedents recited Blackstone's commentaries or Maxims of Law. Give me example
This is a rich and critically important question that deserves a very honest, detailed answer. Let me break it all down.
The Sovereign Citizen Question: The Most Critical Point First
Here is the blunt truth: the problem is never the maxim itself, it's HOW it's used.
Sovereign citizen documents are a mishmash of certain legal terms or phrases, poorly reasoned, illogical, and rife with error. Terms are wrenched from their context and arguments asserted that have no basis. The maxims are real and legitimate. The sovereign citizen abuse of them, using Latin phrases to claim courts have no jurisdiction over you, or that you are exempt from law, is what courts reject completely. Craftlegal
Sovereign citizen documents may include unusual formalities such as maxims written in Latin, thumbprints, or stamps in certain places, as well as unconventional, sometimes incomprehensible pseudo-legalese. That's the association judges have formed. So if you walk into court with pages of Latin maxims but zero case law or statutory support, you will be profiled as a sovereign citizen, fairly or not. Wikipedia
The distinction that saves you is this: a lawyer citingactus non facit reum nisi mens sit reain a criminal intent argument is respected. A sovereign citizen citing it to claim the court has no power over them is mocked.
Have Courts Rejected Maxims?
Yes, With Sanctions
In United States v. Jagim (1992), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected sovereign citizen arguments in a drug trafficking case, describing them as "completely without merit" and "patently frivolous." All About Lawyer
According to United States v. Benabe (2011), "Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a 'sovereign citizen,' a 'secured-party creditor,' or a 'flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be rejected summarily, however they are presented." Wikipedia
Actor Wesley Snipes is a real-world example: when he faced tax evasion charges in 2006, he adopted a sovereign citizen defense, claiming to be a "non-resident alien" who should not be subject to income tax. He was eventually found guilty of three misdemeanor counts of failing to file federal income tax returns and sentenced to 36 months in prison. Wikipedia
Have People WON Using Maxims?
Yes, When Done Correctly
This is where it gets genuinely interesting. The maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium ("where there is a right, there is a remedy") has a documented winning history in real courts:
Ashby v. White (1703), One of the oldest English common law cases still cited today. The plaintiff was a qualified voter who was stopped from voting in parliamentary elections. The candidate he wished to vote for won the election. The court held that though the plaintiff had suffered no damage as the candidate he wished to vote for won the election, his legal right had been violated and he was entitled to enforce the right. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied and compensation was provided. B&B Associates LLP
Maretti v. William, The plaintiff was restrained from withdrawing money from the defendant's bank despite having sufficient funds in his account. The court applied the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium and held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages because his legal right had been violated. Legal Service India
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, The petitioner was an MLA who was illegally detained by a police officer while on his way to the parliamentary assembly and was not produced before the magistrate in time. The Supreme Court held that the defendants were responsible and awarded compensation to the petitioner for the infringement of his fundamental right. The maxim was part of the court's reasoning. Legal Service India
One law review article traces the history of ubi jus ibi remedium as a fundamental concept from Blackstone to the Federalists to Marbury v. Madison, arguing that the right to a meaningful remedy is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the legitimate power of a maxim, as a doctrinal foundation, not a magic phrase. ResearchGate
Real Case Law Where Blackstone Was Cited and Cases Were Won
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The most famous modern example. The Supreme Court described Blackstone's works as "the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation." The Court cited Blackstone's Commentaries to establish that the right to keep arms was an individual right, that Americans understood the "right of self-preservation" as permitting a citizen to repel force by force when the intervention of society on his behalf may be too late to prevent an injury. Heller won. The D.C. handgun ban was struck down. Blackstone was central to the argument. Justia
Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller invoked Blackstone like a mantra, mentioning the great man or editions of his work no fewer than nine times. Findlaw
Calder v. Bull (1798): One of the earliest Supreme Court cases. The Court cited Blackstone directly: "The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, considers an ex post facto law..." The Court used Blackstone's definition of ex post facto laws to interpret the constitutional prohibition. This case still governs ex post facto law analysis today. Legal Information Institute
Self-Represented Litigants: The Real Statistics
In federal district courts from 1998 to 2017, around 12% of pro se defendants received final judgments in their favor while pro se plaintiffs won only 3% of final judgments. Cornell
Robert Kearns represented himself in a patent infringement case over his invention of the intermittent windshield wiper against Ford Motor Company in 1990 and won a multi-million dollar judgment. He did not use sovereign citizen tactics, he used actual patent law and fought on the merits. Warrior Lawyers
From 2000 to 2019, 27% of all federal civil cases had at least one pro se plaintiff or defendant. Civil rights actions accounted for 14% of the civil pro se caseload. Civil rights cases are actually one of the stronger areas for pro se litigants, because the constitutional rights are clearly articulated and the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium maps directly onto the legal theory. U.S. Courts
The Bottom Line Rules
Rule 1 -The maxim is legitimate. The misuse is what's condemned. Courts have cited actus reus/mens rea in thousands of criminal cases. That's not sovereign citizen behavior, that's foundational criminal law.
Rule 2 - Blackstone wins cases at the highest level. The Supreme Court has used him to overturn laws and establish constitutional rights. But it's always paired with constitutional text, historical analysis, and legal argument, never alone.
Rule 3 - A maxim alone has never won a case. A maxim supporting a real legal argument has.
Rule 4 -The edition of Black's Law matters. Courts have noted definitional differences across editions, so citing the 1st edition (1891) vs. the 12th (2024) can actually change your argument's outcome.
No, proper citation of these resources does not automatically make someone a "sovereign citizen," but misuse or over-reliance in fringe ways often leads courts to associate arguments with that movement. Sovereign citizens (and similar groups) frequently carry Black's Law Dictionary and selectively quote outdated definitions (e.g., on "driver," "person," "jurisdiction," or all-caps names as creating a "strawman") to claim exemption from statutes, taxes, or court authority. Courts view these as frivolous and routinely reject them.
Legitimate use, for definitions, historical context, or general principles in support of statutory/case interpretation, is standard practice by attorneys and pro se litigants. Judges distinguish context: a targeted citation to clarify a term is fine; claiming Black's overrides statutes or the Constitution is not.
Pro Se Use in Civil or Criminal Cases
Yes, many pro se litigants cite them. Black's is commonly used for term definitions in briefs/motions. Pro se parties reference Blackstone for common-law background (especially constitutional issues) and maxims for equity or construction arguments. Outcomes vary widely, pro se win rates are generally low (often under 10-15% in federal cases), largely due to procedural hurdles, not these sources specifically.
Rejections by Judges
Judges reject arguments when:
These sources are treated as controlling over statutes, rules, or binding precedent.
Used to support pseudolegal claims (e.g., no jurisdiction, "common law" supremacy).
Sovereign citizen-style filings clog courts.
Courts often dismiss such claims summarily as "frivolous" with minimal explanation. Examples include sovereign citizen cases in North Carolina and federal courts rejecting jurisdiction challenges based on distorted readings. Proper citations are not rejected outright.
Wins Using Them
Direct "wins solely because of these" are rare, legal success depends on facts, statutes, and precedents. However:
Black's definitions are routinely accepted for ordinary meanings and have helped clarify terms in pro se or attorney arguments.
Blackstone and maxims support broader points that contribute to victories (e.g., in constitutional or historical interpretation cases).
No prominent examples exist of a pro se litigant winning a major case purely on sovereign-style misuse; those typically fail. Legitimate use bolsters arguments but does not substitute for evidence or law.
Case Law and Precedents Citing Them
These are frequently cited as persuasive/historical authority, not binding.
Blackstone's Commentaries: Heavily cited by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts for founding-era common law understanding. Supreme Court references have increased; cited in ~8% of signed opinions in some periods. Key examples:
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Relied on Blackstone for Second Amendment/common-law rights context (preeminent authority for Founders).
Marbury v. Madison era influences (writ of mandamus).
Modern cases on sovereign immunity, parental rights (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska), and more.
Legal Maxims: Used in opinions for canons of construction or principles. The DOJ compiled Supreme Court maxims (1993-1998). Examples include stare decisis, burden of proof (actori incumbit probatio), and others in statutory interpretation. Courts apply them as aids, not rules.
Black's Law Dictionary: Cited hundreds of times by the Supreme Court and routinely in federal/state opinions for definitions (e.g., "person," "jurisdiction," "motion").
Examples of use:
In briefs: "As defined in Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed.), 'X' means..." or "Blackstone's Commentaries (Book III) explain the common-law origins of..."
Maxims: "Ubi jus ibi remedium" (where there is a right, there is a remedy) in equity arguments.
Advice for Litigants
You can use them in pro se cases (civil or criminal), but:
Pair with statutes, rules, and binding cases, treat as secondary.
Cite properly (e.g., edition and page/star page for Blackstone).
Avoid fringe interpretations that invite sanctions or dismissal.
Best in: ambiguous statutes, constitutional originalism, or equitable claims.
Consult local rules; higher courts (appellate, federal) are more receptive to scholarly citations than traffic/lower courts.
These tools have real value in understanding law but are not magic bullets. Sovereign citizen tactics fail consistently because they misapply them. For your case, focus on facts and primary authority. If needed, legal aid or a lawyer is advisable.
No. Maxims of law are not inherently associated with the sovereign citizen movement. They are legitimate legal principles that have been recognized in common law for centuries. The key distinction is how they are used.
Are Maxims of Law Considered Sovereign Citizen Arguments?
Generally, no.
Courts, lawyers, judges, and law professors have long recognized legal maxims such as:
Audi alteram partem ("hear the other side")
Equity aids the vigilant
No person should be a judge in their own cause
Ignorance of the law excuses no one
These are traditional legal principles.
However, courts often reject arguments when litigants, whether pro se or represented, argue that:
A maxim alone overrides statutes.
A maxim alone overrides binding case law.
Ancient common law automatically invalidates modern laws.
Blackstone or maxims create personal immunity from government authority.
Those types of arguments sometimes appear in sovereign citizen filings, which is one reason courts may scrutinize them carefully.
Have Self Represented Litigants Used Maxims?
Thousands of pro se litigants have cited:
Black's Law Dictionary
Blackstone's Commentaries
Legal maxims
in both civil and criminal cases.
Examples include:
Property disputes
Contract disputes
Due process claims
Criminal appeals
Family court matters
Constitutional claims
The fact that a litigant is pro se does not prevent them from citing these authorities.
Have Courts Rejected Arguments Based on Maxims?
Courts often reject arguments where the maxim is used as a substitute for actual law.
Example
Suppose a litigant argues:
"Equity aids the vigilant, therefore the court must rule for me."
A judge may respond:
The maxim is not controlling authority and cannot override applicable statutes or precedent.
The court is not rejecting the maxim itself; it is rejecting reliance on the maxim as the sole legal authority.
Have People Ever Won Cases Using Maxims?
Yes, but usually not because of the maxim alone.
Instead:
The maxim reflects a legal principle.
The principle is supported by statutes or precedent.
The litigant prevails because the law supports the principle.
For example:
Due Process
The maxim:
Audi alteram partem
means:
Hear the other side.
This principle is deeply embedded in American due process law.
A litigant denied notice or an opportunity to be heard may prevail because constitutional due process protects those rights.
The maxim helps explain the principle.
Examples of Courts Citing Blackstone
The U.S. Supreme Court has cited William Blackstone numerous times.
Example 1
District of Columbia v. Heller
Justice Antonin Scalia discussed Blackstone extensively when analyzing the historical understanding of the right to bear arms.
Blackstone was used to explain how English common law understood self-defense and individual rights.
Example 2
United States v. Jones
The Court discussed common-law trespass principles rooted in historical English law, including sources such as Blackstone.
Example 3
Crawford v. Washington
The Court relied heavily on historical common-law sources, including Blackstone, when discussing confrontation rights.
Examples of Courts Citing Legal Maxims
Courts regularly cite maxims when discussing equitable principles.
Clean Hands Doctrine
The maxim:
He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
has been recognized by courts for centuries.
A plaintiff seeking equitable relief may be denied relief if their own conduct was improper.
Equity Aids the Vigilant
Courts have long recognized this principle when discussing delay, laches, and equitable remedies.
Example Relevant to Due Process
Because many of your questions involve administrative hearings and procedural fairness, consider this maxim:
Audi alteram partem
("hear the other side")
This maxim reflects the idea that a person should receive:
Notice
An opportunity to respond
A meaningful chance to be heard
American courts often recognize those requirements through constitutional due process doctrines rather than by relying solely on the Latin maxim itself.
What Judges Usually Think
Strong Use
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process. Courts have held due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. This principle is reflected in the maxim Audi alteram partem.
A judge is likely to view this as a legitimate legal argument.
Weak Use
Because the maxim Audi alteram partem exists, the court must rule in my favor.
A judge is likely to reject that argument because the maxim alone is not binding authority.
Practical Rule
When litigating, whether in municipal court, superior court, federal district court, or an appellate court, use:
Constitution
Statutes
Court rules
Binding case law
Blackstone and historical authorities
Legal maxims
Black's Law Dictionary
The further down that list you go, the more persuasive rather than binding the authority becomes.
So yes, courts and judges have cited Blackstone and legal maxims for hundreds of years. They are legitimate legal sources. The mistake that causes problems is treating them as if they automatically override statutes, court rules, or binding precedent.
American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur. or Am. Jur. 2d) is a leading national legal encyclopedia providing broad, general overviews of U.S. law (federal and state, civil and criminal, substantive and procedural). It is not "law" itself but a secondary source that summarizes principles, cites supporting cases/statutes, and points to forms, proofs, and practice aids.
History
It originated with Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company (a competitor to West Publishing). The first series began earlier in the 20th century; the second edition (Am. Jur. 2d) launched in 1962. Lawyers Co-op was acquired by Thomson Corporation, and after mergers, it is now published by Thomson Reuters/West. It competes directly with Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), with Am. Jur. being more selective in case citations (focusing on leading cases) and often more readable, with stronger coverage of federal statutes. It has grown to over 140 volumes, updated via pocket parts, replacement volumes, and online platforms like Westlaw and Lexis. Related series include Am. Jur. Trials, Proof of Facts, Pleading and Practice Forms, and Legal Forms.
How and When to Use It
When: Use it as a starting point for unfamiliar topics to get a quick, organized overview of the law. Ideal for beginners, pro se litigants, or attorneys researching a new area. It helps identify key principles, elements of claims/defenses, and leads to primary sources (cases, statutes). Not for deep cutting-edge analysis—use treatises, law reviews, or primary authority for that.
How:
Search by topic (alphabetical, e.g., "Contracts," "Negligence," "Criminal Law") or keyword.
Read the narrative summary, then check footnotes for cases.
Update with pocket parts or online versions.
Cross-reference to West Key Numbers, ALRs, or forms.
In arguments: Cite for general principles or to support a point, but always pair with primary authority. Example citation: 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 322 (year or Westlaw update).
Examples:
In a personal injury case: Look up "Negligence" or "Premises Liability" for duty, breach, causation, damages elements, with case citations.
Contract dispute: "Contracts" topic for formation, performance, breach, remedies.
Criminal matter: "Criminal Law" for defenses or sentencing principles.
Court Recognition in Arguments, Memoranda, or Briefs
Yes, courts recognize and cite Am. Jur. as persuasive secondary authority. It is commonly referenced in briefs and opinions for background or to illustrate majority rules, though it is not binding like statutes or precedents. Judges accept it for definitions, overviews, or when primary sources are aligned. It appears in federal and state court filings; some Supreme Court or lower court references exist for general propositions.
Pro se litigants and attorneys use it routinely. Over-reliance without primary support can weaken an argument, similar to other secondary sources.
Fun and True Facts
Scale: Over 400 topical articles across 100+ volumes—essentially a massive "law A-to-Z."
Related tools: Includes practical series like Am. Jur. Proof of Facts (question-and-answer guides for proving elements at trial) and Am. Jur. Trials (strategies, checklists, sample examinations).
Selective vs. Exhaustive: Unlike C.J.S. (which tries to cite nearly everything), Am. Jur. picks "the best" cases, making it more concise and user-friendly.
Deskbook bonus: The Am. Jur. 2d Deskbook includes historical documents (e.g., Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence), court directories, and more.
It's a staple in virtually every U.S. law library and widely available on Westlaw/Lexis, reflecting its dominance as a go-to reference.
Bottom line: American Jurisprudence is an excellent research tool for understanding the big picture and finding leads, much like Black's or Blackstone for definitions/history. Use it to educate yourself or the court, then anchor arguments in statutes and cases. For specific litigation, combine it with primary sources and consider consulting an attorney.
Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.
Am. Jur. traces back to Lawyers Cooperative Publishing in Rochester, NY, which began producing legal reference works in the 1880s. The company's mission was to make comprehensive American law accessible to practitioners in all states — not just those with access to elite law libraries. The original "Ruling Case Law" (1914–1921) was the direct ancestor, organized as a 28-volume summary of common law principles backed by case citations.
First Edition — 1936
American Jurisprudence — born 1936
The first edition of "American Jurisprudence" replaced Ruling Case Law in 1936, expanding coverage and reorganizing under a modern alphabetical-topic system. It competed directly with West Publishing's "Corpus Juris Secundum" (CJS), which launched around the same time. For decades, law firms chose sides — Am. Jur. vs. CJS — like they were rival baseball teams.
Second Edition — 1962
Am. Jur. 2d — the edition still in use today
Am. Jur. 2d launched in 1962, fully rewritten to reflect post-WWII legal developments, the New Deal regulatory state, and expanding federal law. This second edition has been continuously updated ever since — never replaced whole-cloth, but supplemented with annual pocket parts and periodic replacement volumes. Thomson Reuters (which acquired both Lawyers Coop and West Publishing) now publishes both Am. Jur. 2d and CJS — former rivals under the same roof.
Today — Digital Era
Westlaw, LexisNexis & print
Am. Jur. 2d is now accessible on both Westlaw and LexisNexis, searchable by keyword, topic, or section number. It also remains in print in law libraries. A companion "Deskbook" volume contains the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, UN Charter, federal court addresses, anatomical diagrams, and statistical tables — making it part legal encyclopedia, part almanac.
Here's the complete breakdown across all six tabs — let me give you the most important takeaways:
What American Jurisprudence 2d Actually Is
Am. Jur. 2d is a multi-volume national legal encyclopedia covering state and federal legal topics alphabetically arranged in more than 400 topics or chapters, summarizing broad principles of United States law and providing citations to cases, statutes, rules, forms, and A.L.R. annotations. It is not law — it describes the law and leads you to it. Libguides
The Critical Rule for Using It
While a paralegal or litigant wants to use encyclopedias as a research source, it is not usually a good idea to quote them alone. While it is not technically wrong to quote an encyclopedia, most attorneys would not since they carry such little weight with the court. There is an exception, however — if you are citing an encyclopedia to define a term or phrase, that would be acceptable. That exception is your power move. Use it to lock down a definition, then immediately pivot to primary case law.
w Reviews
When Should You Use American Jurisprudence?
Use it when you need to:
1. Understand a Legal Topic
Example:
You want to understand:
Procedural Due Process
American Jurisprudence will explain:
Notice requirements
Hearing requirements
Opportunity to be heard
Relevant case law
2. Find Supporting Cases
American Jurisprudence cites cases.
For example:
A section discussing due process may cite dozens of federal and state decisions.
You can then read those cases directly.
3. Support a Memorandum or Brief
It may be cited when explaining a general legal principle.
Example:
"Due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard." 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law § ___.
Then you follow with actual case law.
How to Use It Correctly
Strong Method
State constitutional provision.
State statute.
State controlling case.
Cite Am. Jur. for explanation.
Example:
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees procedural due process. Courts have held that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. American Jurisprudence explains that procedural due process generally requires a meaningful opportunity to present one's position.
This is strong legal writing.
Weak Method
American Jurisprudence says I should win.
A judge may not find that persuasive.
Why?
Because Am. Jur. is not binding authority.
Example in a Memorandum
Suppose someone argues they were denied a fair administrative hearing.
A memorandum might state:
Procedural due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; relevant case law. American Jurisprudence explains that the essence of procedural due process is fundamental fairness in governmental proceedings.
Notice how Am. Jur. supports the argument but does not replace authority.
Do Judges Cite American Jurisprudence?
Yes.
Judges often cite Am. Jur. when:
Explaining a legal doctrine
Describing general rules
Discussing historical principles
Summarizing common law
Especially when there is no controlling case directly on point.
Example Topics Often Supported by Am. Jur.
Due Process
Notice and opportunity to be heard.
Equity
Clean hands doctrine.
Administrative Law
Fair hearings and agency procedures.
Contracts
Offer, acceptance, consideration.
Evidence
Authentication and admissibility.
Municipal Law
Powers and duties of local governments.
Comparison of Legal Sources
Source
Purpose
Binding?
Constitution
Supreme law
Yes
Statutes
Legislative law
Yes
Court Rules
Procedural law
Yes
Case Law
Judicial precedent
Yes
American Jurisprudence
Explains law
No
Corpus Juris Secundum
Explains law
No
Blackstone
Historical authority
No
Black's Law Dictionary
Definitions
No
Fun Facts
Fun Fact #1
Many lawyers begin legal research in American Jurisprudence before looking at statutes and cases.
Why?
Because it provides a roadmap of the law.
Fun Fact #2
American Jurisprudence contains thousands of citations to court decisions from across the United States.
Fun Fact #3
Many judicial opinions have quoted American Jurisprudence when describing legal principles.
Fun Fact #4
Before online databases became common, lawyers often kept complete Am. Jur. sets in their law libraries.
Some collections filled entire walls.
Fun Fact #5
American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum are sometimes called:
"The legal encyclopedias of America."
True Facts Every Litigant Should Know
American Jurisprudence is respected.
Judges recognize it.
Lawyers cite it.
It is not binding law.
It is best used to explain a legal principle and locate supporting cases.
A brief supported by constitutional provisions, statutes, precedent, and Am. Jur. is generally stronger than a brief relying on Am. Jur. alone.
A practical way to think about it is:
Black's Law Dictionary tells you what a legal term means.
Blackstone tells you where many common-law principles came from.
American Jurisprudence tells you how American courts generally understand and apply those principles today.
Case law and statutes determine who wins the case.
Comments
Post a Comment