Courts share an obligation to modernize outdated common-law rules

Evidence

The common law is not merely a conglomeration of rules to be gleaned from decisions of the ancient past; it is a living and growing body of legal principles. It derives its life and growth from judicial decisions which alter an existing rule, or abandon an old rule and substitute in its place a new one in order to meet new conditions. It is because of this gradual but continuous process of change that the body of our common law today is as different from that of mediaeval England as our physical surroundings are from those of that era. And it is absolutely essential that this be so, for it would be an impossible situation indeed if we attempted to determine twentieth century disputes by means of rules of law applicable to 15th Century facts. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2367

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lie about the common law as a ‘living and growing body’ — directly useful vocabulary for defining common law vs. statute in the Legal Systems course.
• XREF: Extends ch14’s point that judges deciding on personal notions create future mischief; here Vanderbilt answers that the fix is judicial updating, not legislative monopoly. — connects to: Courts may not amend a statute however desirable policy change may be — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1059; Courts may revise common-law rules even where legislatures have failed to act — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2368; The common law’s own flexibility compels re-testing old rules against new conditions — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2377 (+10 more)
• SEED: A short essay could put Vanderbilt’s ‘living common law’ against Heher’s immutability view as the cleanest formulation of the two rival theories of precedent.
• recurring: this claim recurs 3 times within its source

Broader Connections

• Courts may revise common-law rules even where legislatures have failed to act #corroborates (0.90) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2368
• The common law’s own flexibility compels re-testing old rules against new conditions #expands (0.85) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2377
• The common law adapts to social and economic change #expands (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311
• Respect for precedent keeps courts from reversing failed policies. #contradicts (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1482
• Nineteenth-century judges actively reshaped common law to fit American conditions. #exemplifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2837
• Technological change forces courts to extend old statutes to unanticipated situations. #exemplifies (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1421
• The American legal system is common law yet distinctive for judicial policymaking #expands (0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 213
• Law changes by layered accretion rather than revolutionary overhaul. #qualifies (0.70) — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 75