Civil courts have far fewer discoveries. The German system is a useful example because it is not atypical and has greatly influenced other systems such as Japan, Korea and Brazil. In the German system, a judge or jury acts as the Trier of facts. Requests for information from the parties take place during an ongoing hearing and are not addressed to the opposing party, but to the trial judge (Langbein, 1985). The scope of substantive law grew and changed rapidly in the twentieth century, as Congress and state legislators passed laws that replaced many common law principles. In addition, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute have proposed many codes and model laws that states can adopt. For example, these two groups designed the UNIFORM CODE OF COMMERCE (UCC), which regulates trade. The UCC was adopted in whole or in part by all states, replacing the common law and deviating from state laws as the authoritative source of substantive commercial law. On the other hand, digestive commentators and writers, who rely on the entire corpus of smṛti literature as also authoritative, are able to fill the gaps of one smṛti by resorting to another smṛti. With two exceptions, the smṛti texts tell us little about what happens to a father`s inheritance when he has no offspring other than a great-grandson. Commentaries and abstracts use all smṛti texts to create complete, though rarely uniform, lists of the king`s heirs, son, and other relatives.

Commentaries and summaries provide consistent, though different, systems from Hindu law. German hearings are held mainly on the basis of witnesses and documents mentioned in the parties` preliminary observations, which generally do not contain much information prejudicial to a party`s case. A party may ask the judge to require the presentation of additional evidence only in limited categories. A party is entitled to all documents referred to in the counterparty`s submissions and to documents to which it has a right of access under substantive law (usually based on a contract or fiduciary relationship between the parties) (Gerber, 1986). Even within these categories, the party must provide stronger evidence of relevance than under U.S. law: the information must reasonably influence the court`s decision on a contentious issue and be described with reasonable accuracy. Beyond these categories of information, there is no discovery. A key question about the work of para-lawyers is how it compares in quality to the same activities of lawyers. While lawyers argue that the use of para-lawyers increases the risk of poor quality work, efforts to systematically compare the work of lawyers and para-lawyers do not support this claim (Kritzer 1998). Existing research shows that para-lawyers can be just as effective as lawyers at providing specific legal services. Achieving effectiveness requires a combination of specific knowledge or expertise in substantive law, institutional processes and other actors in the system. Para-lawyers who receive this combination can achieve a level of efficiency comparable to that of lawyers, and specialized para-lawyers will tend to be more effective than lawyers who do not have one or more of the three basic elements of knowledge.

Substantive criminal law deals with the elements of a case to the extent that the present question may or may not be regarded as a criminal offence. For every alleged crime that has taken place, there are specific elements that must exist in order to classify it as a crime. For example, substantive criminal law would stipulate that for a person who can be charged with the crime of burglary, the following elements must be present: To understand the differences between the structure and content of substantive and procedural law, let`s take an example. When a person is accused and tried, substantive law prescribes the penalty that the defendant will face if convicted. Substantive law also defines the types of crimes and their gravity based on factors such as whether the person is a repeat offender, whether it is a hate crime, whether it is self-defence, etc. It also defines the responsibilities and rights of the accused. 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. Procedural law, on the other hand, provides the State with the necessary mechanisms to apply substantive laws to the people.

Procedural law includes the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil or criminal proceedings. Procedural law deals with the method and means by which substantive law is established and administered. In other words, substantive law deals with the merits of the case, how the charges are to be dealt with and how the facts are to be dealt with; while procedural law will provide a step-by-step action plan on how the case should proceed in order to achieve the desired objectives. Hence its procedural law, which makes it possible to decide whether the case requires a trial or not. A peculiarity of modern studies is the replacement of trust in divine intervention with empirically sound modern decision-making. Factual evidence that has been subjected to scrutiny has replaced the probative value of supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony replaced the accused`s oath. And the collection, sorting and reflection of evidence has moved from an informal process to a disciplined arrangement governed by detailed procedures and formal rules. Keep in mind that the first known juries that met in criminal cases in Anglo-Saxon England were men from the local community who knew first-hand the case and/or the character of the accused.

In the nineteenth century, a jury was a group that was legally excluded from any direct knowledge of the facts of the present case and could only obtain evidence examined under very complex rules and introduced under complicated procedures. In most ordinary cases, the medieval process was a relatively informal and brief issue dealt with by the parties involved in the dispute. But the modern process is dominated by lawyers – highly qualified and highly paid professional lawyers for the parties to the dispute – who have to deal with the creeping intricacies of modern substantive law and who have to practice according to increasingly complex rules of evidence and procedure. From the seventh century AD until the eighteenth century, the Smṛtis were the subject of many commentaries. Both commentaries on individual texts and summaries dealing with certain aspects of the Dharma have drawn the whole body of the ancient Smṛti texts into their discussions. Of the many sections of summaries, often the length of a book, one or two are usually devoted to law: some deal separately with procedure (vyavahāra) and substantive law (vivāda); others combine the two into a single treaty. There are even summaries on specific aspects of substantive law, mainly on inheritance and adoption. Negligence is most often prosecuted in the event of a road accident.

While all states will insist that a plaintiff prove the existence of these four elements of substantive law in a dispute in order to be victorious in a claim for negligence, each state will differ in terms of specific conduct laws. For example, while a person is not allowed to light a red light on the right in one state, they may be allowed to do so in another state. Therefore, an applicant may have a case of negligence in a State where it is illegal, while an applicant in a State that allows it cannot. The laws of the State in which the lawsuit is brought determine the nature of the case and the extent to which each of these elements exists. The above three rules are typical of what is generally referred to as the traditional legal choice system. For much of the twentieth century, these and similar rules were followed more or less uniformly in most countries. These rules attach great importance to certainty and predictability in the choice of applicable law, leaving little room for judicial discretion. As the above examples show, these rules do not give preference to the forum State and are in fact intended to create international or intergovernmental uniformity, that is, to make it more likely that each multi-State case will be subject to the same law, regardless of where the case is heard. The choice of applicable law does not depend on the content of the law of the participating States, but on the territorial or other contacts of those States with the present case. Once it is established that a State has predetermined contact, e.B the place of the offence, the law of that State is applied almost automatically and, with a few exceptions, regardless of its content, underlying policy or the substantive quality of the result that such application produces. The purpose of the traditional choice of law procedure is not to ensure a substantially “just” result (substantive justice), but rather to ensure the spatially appropriate application of the law (conflict justice). Substantive law in a dispute refers to the `substance` of a case by dealing with the elements of the case and clearly defining the area of law that applies to each individual case […].