SELECCIN DE TEXTOS.

Este trabajo de compilacin contiene los

textos que se utilizarn para el dictado de
la materia. Los textos ilustran los distintos
ejes temticos abordados para la
enseanza de las tcnicas de comprensin
lectora en lengua extranjera

LECTOCOMPRENSIN
INGLS
MATERIAL DIDCTICO
ALUMNOS
UNIDAD 4

DEPARTAMENTO DE IDIOMAS
 UNIDAD 4:

DERECHO PROCESAL CIVIL

2
 NDICE DE CONTENIDOS

Texto 1: The Basic Steps in a Civil Lawsuit: Civil Law Process

Texto 2: Civil Process In Graphs

Texto 3: Common Interpretation Seventh Amendment
Texto 4: Pros And Cons Of Having A Jury System
Cartoon: Cons Of Having A Jury System
Texto 5: Whos Suing Who In The Mobile Phones Market?
(Graph & Text)

Apndice 1: MAGNA CARTA MUSE AND MENTOR, Trial by

Jury

Apndice 2: CHART CIVIL PROCESS

3
Texto 1: The Basic Steps in a Civil Lawsuit: Civil Law
Process

Fuente: http://www.shestokas.com/general-law/the-basic-steps-in-a-civil-lawsuit-civil-law-process/

october 25, 2012 by david j. shestokas

Thanks to television dramas and criminal trial news coverage criminal

law procedure is familiar to many. How a civil lawsuit proceeds is less
well known.
The process and purpose of civil and criminal law differ. In a criminal
case, the government seeks to impose penalties upon an individual for
violating the law. Those penalties can include fines, loss of freedom or
even death. The purpose of the penalties varies from revenge,
deterrence, rehabilitation or incapacitation to protect the community.
A civil lawsuit differs in that it is to resolve matters between private
parties. One person believes another has harmed him, and the courts
are available to resolve the problem.
In a civil lawsuit, an individual or corporation called the plaintiff brings
another party, referred to as the defendant, to court. The plaintiff asks a
judge to order the defendant either to pay money or perform a specific
action. A civil suit may involve family law matters, a contract dispute or
a tort.
A tort is a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
results in injury to anothers person, property, or reputation and for
which the injured party is entitled to compensation. Intentional torts
include battery, libel and slander. Negligent torts are the result of
conduct that causes unintended injury. Auto accidents, medical
malpractice or product liability are examples of negligent torts. An
attorney well versed in a particular legal area is important as each has
rules unique to it, though the basic principles that follow apply in most
instances.
Initial Steps in a Civil Lawsuit, Complaint & Answer
The plaintiff, or injured party, typically with the help of an attorney,
files an initial document called a complaint, the first pleading in a civil
action, stating the cause of action.
The plaintiffs complaint asks for damages or relief from a defendant,
who is alleged to have caused the injury. The complaint outlines the
legal and factual reasons why the plaintiff believes the defendant is
responsible for his injury.
The clerk of the court then issues a summons to the defendant. Either
the sheriff or a licensed process server formally delivers the summons to
the defendant. The summons provides notice of the lawsuit and a copy
of the complaint.
The defendant or his lawyer has a specified time to either personally
appear in court. The defendant is required to file a document referred to

4
as an answer. The answer addresses the facts and the legal claims in
the complaint. The answer tells the court which facts in the complaint
the defendant agrees with, and those with which he disagrees.
Motions in the Early Stages
Once the complaint and answer have been filed with the court,
attorneys for both sides consider proper motions. A motion is a request
to the court to issue an order. The defense may file a motion to dismiss,
indicating the complaint does not contain facts making the defendant
liable to the plaintiff. A defendant may file a motion to dismiss before
his answer. The plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment,
which says the parties do not disagree about the facts of the case and
that those facts make the defendant liable to the plaintiff.
If a court grants either of these early motions, the lawsuit may end. This
is why motions to dismiss or for summary judgment are usually the
first parts of a lawsuit. If these motions are denied (or not filed as
inappropriate), then the lawsuit proceeds.
Discovery and Pre-trial
The next part of the process is discovery. During discovery, the parties
exchange information and documents related to the claim in the
complaint and defenses asserted in the answer. During discovery,
depositions may be conducted. A deposition is testimony given under
oath by people with information related to the lawsuit recorded by a
court reporter.
As discovery proceeds, the parties have pre-trial conferences with the
judge. The parties advise the judge of discovery progress and in some
situations discuss possible settlements. The judge often aids in
negotiations and sets schedules for completion of discovery.
During the pre-trial phase, the lawyers may request the judge to bar
specific evidence, witnesses or arguments as legally improper. The judge
grants or denies the motions. Upon completion of discovery, decisions
on pre-trial motions and failure to reach a settlement the matter is
ready to go to trial.
Trial and Judgment
At the trial, the plaintiff presents evidence first to a judge either in a
bench trial or a group of citizens in a jury. After the plaintiff presents
evidence, the defendant has an opportunity to present the defense side
of the case. The plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a
preponderance of the evidence. This means that it is more likely than
not, that the claims of the plaintiff are true. This standard of evidence is
much lower than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both sides present their cases, and then the judge or jury decides. If the
judge or jury finds against the plaintiff, the case is over. The judge
enters a judgment in favor of the defendant releasing the defendant
from liability for the plaintiffs claims.
If the judge or jury finds for the plaintiff, the defendant is found to be
liable and judgment is entered for the plaintiff. The court then awards
5
damages (money) and/or orders the defendant perform a specific act.
This order concludes the trial process and is a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff.
Appeals
The losing party may file an appeal if they believe the outcome was
incorrect legally. An appellate court may dismiss the appeal, hear and
affirm the judgment, reverse it, or send it back to the trial court with
instructions to correct legal errors. Many lawsuits go between the
appellate court and trial court multiple times before final resolution.
Enforcement
When a judgment becomes final in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff
may not file suit on the same basis in the future. If the ruling favors the
plaintiff, the defendant must observe all the terms of the judgment.
Failure of the defendant to obey the judgment places the defendant in
contempt of court and brings the danger of prosecution and other
penalties for that contempt. Additionally, a plaintiff with a judgment
may seek to enforce it by obtaining a court order to seize the property of
the defendant to satisfy the defendants debt. A final judgement against
a defendant can be collected even if the defendant has moved to another
state. This is due to the Constitutions Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Twists and Turns
The above outlines the basics of how a civil lawsuit proceeds. There can
be many twists and turns along the way, with the attorneys filing many
different motions. There are time deadlines and extensions. The
process is extremely important. A plaintiff or defendant can be
completely right on the facts but fail to follow the process and lose the
case. While a party to a lawsuit should have an understanding of the
basic process, each area of law has its own quirks. The rules for a
breach of contract, intentional torts, negligent torts, family law, or
malpractice differ from each other. An attorney should be familiar with
not only the general process, but also the specific area of law.

6
Texto 2: CIVIL PROCESS IN GRAPHS

GRFICO 1
Fuente:
https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=trial+flowchart&rlz=1C1CHVN_esAR571AR572&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=666&tb
m=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X

GRFICO 2
Fuente :http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/403%20Civil%20Actions.gif

7
 Texto 3: COMMON INTERPRETATION SEVENTH
AMENDMENT
fuente: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-vii

Common Interpretation

THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT

By Rene Lettow Lerner and Suja A. Thomas

To many Americans, jury trials seem to be the normal way of deciding civil cases.
Television programs and movies show exciting scenes of juries deciding important non-
criminal disputes involving individuals, government officials, and companies.

The reality is different. Juries decide less than one percent of the civil cases that are
filed in court. This lack of jury trials may seem strange, as the Seventh Amendment
guarantees the right to jury trial in certain civil cases.

There are two main types of court systems in the United States: federal and state. The
Seventh Amendment requires civil jury trials only in federal courts. This Amendment is
unusual. The U.S. Supreme Court has required states to protect almost every other right
in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to criminal jury trial, but the Court has not
required states to hold civil jury trials. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v.
Bombolis (1916). Nearly all of the states, however, have rights to civil jury trial in
certain cases in their state constitutions.
The United States is almost the only nation that continues to require civil jury trials.
Civil juries similar to those in the United States are not part of the legal traditions of the
Continent of Europe or the legal systems derived from those traditions, including in
Latin America and Asia. Even in England and its former colonies of Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand, civil jury trial has virtually been abolished.

Why did some persons at the founding of the United States think that civil jury trial was
so important that it should be guaranteed in the federal and state constitutions? To
understand the Seventh Amendment, we need to go back into history and the English

8
legal system. Much of the legal system in the United States, and especially the
provisions of the Bill of Rights, are based on Americas English roots.

The civil jury was an old English institution, older even than the criminal jury. Since the
middle ages, the English had used juries of persons not trained in law to decide certain
civil cases. There were always some English courts that did not use juries. In these
courts, judges decided cases. The most important of these juryless courts was Chancery,
also known as Equity.

In the eighteenth century, as the desire of American colonists for independence from
Britain grew, the jury in America became more important. The British government
claimed that Americans had to obey laws enacted by the British Parliament, in which
Americans had no representation. Americans did participate on colonial juries, and
these juries became a way for Americans to govern themselves. As tensions with Britain
rose, juries nullified (refused to follow) hated British laws, especially laws for collecting
taxes. Because colonial juries had been valuable in the struggle against Britain,
Americans put rights to civil and criminal jury trial into their new state constitutions
immediately after declaring independence in 1776.

By the time the federal Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, opinions
about the civil jury were more mixed. Because state civil juries had been sympathetic to
debtors, Federalists in particular feared nullification of the laws of contract. For this and
other reasons, the federal Constitution that was presented to the states for ratification did
not include a right to civil jury trial.

In the state ratifying conventions for the federal Constitution, Anti-Federalists strongly
protested the lack of a right to civil jury trial. They expressed concerns about debtors,
and also argued that juries could protect litigants from bad laws passed by the
legislature, tyrannical actions by the executive, and corrupt or biased judges. Fearing
that a second constitutional convention might be called if a right to civil jury trial were
not included in a federal Bill of Rights, James Madison drafted what became the
Seventh Amendment.

The Seventh Amendment has two clauses. The first, known as the Preservation Clause,
provides: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. This clause sets out the types of
cases juries are required to decide. The second clause, known as the Re-examination
Clause, declares: no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. This clause prevents
federal judges from overturning jury verdicts in certain ways.

The term common law, used twice in the Amendment, can be confusing. Today, the
term common law often means law declared by judges, as opposed to law enacted by
legislatures. In the Seventh Amendment, the term common law means the law and

9
procedure of the courts that used juries, as opposed to Equity and other courts that did
not use juries.

In interpreting the Seventh Amendment, judges soon encountered a problem. To which

common law courts was the Amendment referring? The states had different civil jury
practices, and the federal courts were new. The United States Supreme Court announced
a solution. The term common law in the Seventh Amendment meant the common law
of England. Parsons v. Bedford (1830). A century later, the Supreme Court formally
declared that the Amendment was to be iterpreted according to the common law of
England at the time the Amendment was ratified, that is, in 1791. Dimick v.
Schiedt (1935).

This interpretation is known as the historical test. Generally, the types of cases that
juries decide and the ways that judges can review their verdicts are supposed to
resemble the practice in English common law courts in 1791. The Supreme Court has
stated that the Amendment preserves the substance of the right, not mere matters of
form or procedure. Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935). Departures
from the English practice in 1791 have been permitted, including using six jurors
instead of twelve.Colgrove v. Battin (1973).

10
 Texto 4: PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A JURY SYSTEM
Fuente: http://thecanadianjurysystem.weebly.com/pros--cons.html
PROS AND CONS OF HAVING A JURY SYSTEM
Very efficient system, with
approximately 800 years of
success.
The Canadian Jury System reflects
Canadas democratic society by
encouraging citizens to take part
and get involved in their civil duties. The jury may not always consist of the
The Jury System is a crucial aspect
of the Canadian legal system
because it ensures that the jurors
are equitable.
It prevents the partiality of the
judge alone and it reinforces
Canadas democratic values by
having an equal say from each
juror.
Justices have their own personal
views and values. By having a jury
for the case, the fate of the accused
is not solely in one person's hands.
Every juror has an opportunity to
put in their opinion instead of just
one person making a decision based
on what they think. The accused
may, because of their status, be in
conflict with the judge's values and
views. For example, if the accused
holds membership in a particular
political party and the judge has
their own views on politics, there
may be an unfair decision made.
Unanimous verdicts block any
biased opinions from occurring
among the jurors.
It is very time consuming. Also
depends on how serious the case is.
For example if it is a 1st degree
murder case, it will take longer for the
decision to be made. Therefore
causing the jury to stay longer.
smartest and brilliant people. Some of
them may not have received enough
education to actually make a call on
whether the accused is guilty or not.
Horrific cases can seriously affect
jurors who have to sit through some
agonizing or disturbing evidence.
Judge has to explain legal matters to
the jurors.
Jurors are basically deciding what will
happen to the accused. This is an
issue because we are talking about
the fate of a person(s) and it may not
be dealt with properly or with enough
thought. There may be bias jurors
who will purposely make an unfair
decision. This is dishonest and biased
towards the accused. It is still not a
fool proof system. Juries have
definitely made mistakes and wrongly
convicted people
A jury can be quite expensive and
costly because jury duty allows for the
jurors to be compensated for lost
wages.
Juries do not have to give any reason
for verdicts and therefore can easily be
influenced by impressive lawyers or
even judges. They can change their
opinion any time they want.
11
Texto 4: Cartoon: CONS OF HAVING A JURY SYSTEM

Fuente: http://es.slideshare.net/yunudeni/common-law-vs-civil-law-
1435418?next_slideshow=1

12
Texto 5: WHOS SUING WHO IN THE MOBILE PHONES MARKET?

http://www.cultofmac.com/61882/handy-mobile-lawsuit-flow-chart-graphic/

Handy Mobile Lawsuit Flow Chart [Graphic]

BY LONNIE LAZAR 2:21 PM, OCTOBER 5, 2010

13
Take a look at the litigious melee going on among companies trying to
squeeze profits out of the mobile communications landscape. Its a wonder
we have phones and operating systems at all, isnt it?

Interestingly, the one suit against Google by Oracle is somewhat

misleading, given that many of the suits represented by the flying arrows in
the graphic relate to Googles Android operating system, including all of
the ones filed by Microsoft.

Microsoft, with its Windows Mobile 7 OS about to ship, is asserting

intellectual property infringement cases against Motorola and HTC,
claiming Googles Android operating system runs afoul of patents it holds
for several important tasks handled by todays new generation of smart
phones. Specifically the software giant says Android copies its patented
methods for handling email, contacts and calendar synchronisation,
scheduling meetings and notifying applications of changes in signal and
battery strength.

Via [The Guardian]

14
 UNIDAD 4:

DERECHO PROCESAL CIVIL

MATERIAL ADICIONAL

15
 APNDICE 1: MAGNA CARTA MUSE AND MENTOR, Trial by Jury

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/trial-by-jury.html

Former U.S. President Benjamin Harrison served as plaintiffs counsel in the 1895 trial over the estate of James
Morrison of Richmond, Indiana. The trial, which lasted from January 2 until May 10, 1895,
was the longest jury trial in the United States up to that time.
Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress
The right to a trial by jury, one of the most time-honored inheritances from
Magna Carta in United States law, refers to the guarantee that courts will
depend on a body of citizens to render judgments in most civil and criminal
cases. The origins of the jury trial precede the creation of Magna Carta.
However, Chapter 39 of King Johns Magna Carta includes the guarantee
that no free man may suffer punishment without the lawful judgment of
his peers. By this measure the barons sought to force the king to delegate
part of his judicial authority to men who were peers of the individual on
trial. While Magna Carta did not institute the jury system in the modern
sense, its political intentto prevent the kings domination of the courts
inspired later generations to view the right to a trial by jury as one of the
basic safeguards of freedom from arbitrary government.

Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the right to a jury trial as one of the

essential liberties of a free country. They saw the jury as an independent
deliberative body that could refuse to cooperate with an unjust court or law.
Although the United States Constitution recognized a right to a jury trial in
criminal cases, the states demanded a constitutional amendment to
guarantee a jury trial in civil cases as well, leading to the creation of the
Seventh Amendment.

16
APNDICE 2: CHART: CIVIL PROCESS
Fuente: http://jec.unm.edu/manuals-resources/case-flow-charts/magistrate-court/civil-flow-chart/image_preview

17