Equity and Common Law Master Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Equity and Common Law Master - Essay Example When the common law developed the strictures of the writ system through the twelfth and thirteen centuries and failed to develop further remedies. By thirteen century aggrieved litigants to petition to the chancellor to find a more just solution to their problem. Chancellor was trying to give relief in hard cases, and the medieval chancellor was peculiarly well fitted for this work. Chancellor was usually an ecclesiastic. If the petition was successful, the chancellor's conclusion would usually be different from that which the common law court would have reached; otherwise the matter would have been litigant at common law. As a consequence of growth of these petitions, the Court of Chancery had developed, where the decisions were made on the basis of fairness and reason. Thus the notion of 'equity' was established as a precise jurisdiction. The common law tradition grew in to the ELS3 through a long process of rationalization of traditions, customs and local practices among other different elements most occurring in the medieval time. The Anglo-Saxon customs were there before the Norman Conquest, but afterwards were joined with Royal Justice in a consolidation of 'local laws' and a vast body of judicial decisions have been built up which forms much of the present law. The common law has developed by the judges during the centuries immediately after the Norman Conquest. Customs have long influence since ceased to be any major significance in forming new laws. Slapper, G. and D. Kelly (2006) said that the common law system develops whereby a civil dispute had to be brought before the appropriate Royal Court by a writ. A claimant could only sue at common law if his complaint came within the scope of an existing writ. In the thirteen century available writs covered very narrow ground. Even if the claim came within the scope of an existing writ, it may have been that for some reason, such as the power and influence of the defendant, his opponent could not get justice before a common law court. Latter the petition was used to obtain relief in cases where the common law was inflexible and incapable of providing a remedy. Hanbury & Martin (2005) argued that the common law developed into a comprehensive system, but a litigant could only sue at common law if his complaint came within the scope of an existing writ. However, the systems quickly become rigid because judges, fearing a flood at actions as a result of the popularity of the royal justice , stopped issuing new forms of action. As a result, this attitude proved to be a majored obstacle to the development of new rules and principles. Initially this overlapping of the two systems led to conflict. The common law courts would make an order in favour of one party and the Court of Chancery would make an order in favour of other party. This conflict was finally resolved in the Earl of Oxford's case4 when the King ruled that equity should prevail. In this case the court of common law ordered the payment of a debt. The debt had already been paid, but the deed giving rise to the obligation had not been cancelled. The court of equity was prepared to grant an order prevent in this and rectifying the deed. Some limited steps were taken

Implementing Measurements and Testing Models Essay

Implementing Measurements and Testing Models - Essay Example Sampling is done primarily because a population may be very large and diverse making it impossible for the researchers to study all of them given the available resources as well as the element of time. The Sloven formula is commonly used to compute for the desired sample size based on the total population and the margin of error or confidence level. The formula for computing the sample size is as follows: To determine the sample population for a study on drug use of prisoners in the State facilities, the researcher may use stratified random sampling. Stratified random sample involves subdividing the population into smaller homogenous groups to get more accurate information (Best, 2003). It is a commonly used probability method that is superior to random sampling because it reduces sampling error. A stratum is a subset of the population that shares at least one common characteristic. Examples of stratums might be males and females, or managers and non-managers. The researcher first identifies the relevant stratums and their actual representation in the population. Random sampling is then used to select a sufficient number of subjects from each stratum. "Sufficient" refers to a sample size large enough for us to be reasonably confident that the stratum represents the population. Stratified sampling is often used when one or more of the stratums in the population have a low incidence re lative to the other stratums (http://www.statpac.com/surveys/sampling.htm) Since prisoners are detailed in several areas spread all throughout Oklahoma, distributing the sample population according to the area or location of the facility and relative to the number of inmates in each area would ensure representation of each facility. Assuming that the survey research will be conducted in the facilities under the Oklahoma State Department of Corrections, and the desired margin of error is 1% or at 99% confidence level, we can compute for the desired sample size of a population such as 20,306 inmates as of December 8 figures in the OkDOC database using Sloven formula - n = N/(1+Ne2) n = 20,306 / 1+ [(20,306 ) (.01) 2 ] n = 20,306 / 1 + [ (20,306) (.0001)] n = 20,306 / 1 + 2.0306 n = 20, 306 / 3.306 n = 6,142.16 or 6143 Thus, the total number of respondents to the survey on drug use among inmates in the Oklahoma State Department of Corrections will be 6,142 inmates. This figure will be drawn proportionally from the different facilities throughout the State according to their actual count of inmates. Based on percentage share computed in Appendix A, the following will be the distribution of inmate-respondent in each facility. Table 1 - Distribution of Respondents per Facility FACILITIES NAME % of total pop'n # of respondent per facility** 1. Charles E. "Bill" Johnson Correctional Center 2.1 129 2. Dick Conner Correctional Center 4.7 289 3. Dr. Eddie Warrior Correctional Center 3.7 227 4. Howard McLeod Correctional Center 3.1 190 5. Jackie Brannon Correctional Center 3.6 221 6. James Crabtree Correctional Center 3.9 240 7. Jess Dunn Correctional Center 4.8 295 8. Jim E. Hamilton Correctional Center 3.4 209 9. John Lilley Correctional Center 3.6 221 10. Joseph Harp Correctional Center 6.8 418 11. Lexington A & R Center 2 123 12. Mabel Bassett Correctional Cent