In the United States, substantive law comes from state legislators and common law, or law based on social customs and enforced by the courts. Historically, the common law consisted of a set of laws and jurisdictions that ruled England and the American colonies before the American Revolution. Substantive law is a type of law that deals with the legal relationship between individuals or between individuals and the State. Substantive law differs from procedural law in that it defines the rights and obligations of individuals. Procedural law focuses more on the rules used to enforce these rights and obligations. To examine this concept, consider the following definition of substantive law. The Erie Doctrine is a civil doctrine that provides that when a federal court attempts to decide whether to apply federal or state law to a case, it must comply with state law on substantive issues. However, if the issue concerns procedural law, the court must apply federal law to the case. The origin of the Erie Doctrine is the landmark 1938 Supreme Court decision in the Erie Railroad Co.c. Tompkins case. In this case, the Court set aside the earlier decision in Swift v. Tyson, in which federal judges were allowed to ignore the common law decisions of their states in some cases.
Compared to procedural criminal law, substantive criminal law concerns the “substance” of the charges against the accused. Each charge consists of specific elements or actions that amount to the commission of a crime. Substantive law requires prosecutors to prove beyond any doubt that each element of the offence was committed as charged so that the accused can be convicted of that offence. Procedural and substantive law may vary from state to state and sometimes from county to county, so people accused of crimes should contact a certified criminal lawyer operating in their jurisdiction. The question then was whether the Supreme Court`s decision in Johnson, to the extent that it was a violent offence, could be considered retroactively. If so, could Welch succeed in appealing to his own convictions? For example, to obtain a conviction for a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, prosecutors must prove the following essential elements of the crime: “substantive law.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/substantive%20law. Retrieved 14 January 2022. Substantive law is juxtaposed with procedural law. However, the distinction is not always clear. Federal courts have struggled to determine whether a law is substantive or procedural, as this issue often determines whether state or federal law applies in cases of diversity jurisdiction under the Erie Doctrine (which requires federal courts to apply state laws to matters of substantive law).
To determine whether a law is substantial, federal courts can consider whether the law has the potential to determine the outcome of the dispute. For example, in Guaranty Trust Co.c. York, the U.S. Supreme Court, considered whether failure to comply with a state statute of limitations would significantly change the outcome of a trial and ruled that limitation periods are substantive law. In particular, the Court noted that “the outcome of the dispute before the Federal Supreme Court should be essentially the same. what it would be if she were tried by a state court. Subsequent courts refined this analysis and focused on whether the application of federal procedural law to a question would determine the outcome given its potential impact on forum shopping and the unjust administration of laws – that is, the objectives of the Erie doctrine. In Hanna v. Plumer, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that the federal service rules outweighed the state`s requirement of manual service for the nature of the claim, since the federal rule in question was arguably procedural and the federal service rule would not have affected the choice of ex ante judicial evaluation forum. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Welch case, it ruled in its favor almost unanimously (7 to 1).
In the present case, the Court concluded that, unlike procedural laws that change the way in which conduct is found to be punishable, substantive law affects the scope of the law and not its application. In addition, procedural laws are generally not retroactive, but substantive laws are. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Johnson case, the Court held, should also apply retroactively to the Welch case. Substantive law deals with the rights and duties of individuals. For example, substantive law prescribes the type of sentence a person may receive if convicted at the end of his or her criminal case. Substantive law also defines the types of offences and their gravity. For example, substantive law is used to decide whether a crime was a hate crime, whether a murder was committed in self-defence, and so on. .