The American legal system observes several important distinctions between criminal and civil law. Criminal law is concerned with conduct that is offensive to society as a whole. Civil law pertains primarily to the duties of private citizens to each other. In civil cases the disputes are usually between private individuals, although the government may sometimes be a party in a civil suit. Criminal cases always involve government prosecution of an individual for an alleged offense against society.

In a civil case the court attempts to settle a particular dispute between the parties by determining their legal rights. The court then decides upon an appropriate remedy, such as awarding monetary damages to the injured party or issuing an order that directs one party to perform or refrain from a specific act. In a criminal case the court decides whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. A guilty defendant may be punished by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

In some instances the same act may give rise to both a criminal proceeding and a civil suit. Suppose that "Joe" and "Pete," two political scientists attending a convention in Atlanta, are sharing a taxi from the airport to their downtown hotel. During the ride they become involved in a heated political discussion. By the time the taxi stops at their hotel, the discussion has become so heated that they get into a physical confrontation. If Pete strikes Joe in the ribs with his briefcase as he gets out of the taxi, Pete may be charged with criminal assault. In addition, Joe might file a civil suit against Pete in an effort to obtain a monetary award sufficient to cover his medical expenses.

Civil cases far outnumber criminal cases in both the federal and state courts, although they generally do not attract the same media attention as criminal trials. Still, they often raise important policy questions and cover a broad range of disagreements in society. Judicial scholar Herbert Jacob summarizes the breadth of the civil law field in Justice in America: "Every broken agreement, every sale that leaves a dissatisfied customer, every uncollected debt, every dispute with a government agency, every libel and slander, every accidental injury, every marital breakup, and every death may give rise to a civil proceeding."

Contract law is primarily concerned with voluntary agreements between two or more people. Some common examples include agreements to perform a certain type of work, to buy or sell goods, and to construct or repair homes or businesses. Basic to these agreements are a promise by one party and a counter promise by the other party, usually a promise by one party to pay money for the other party's services or goods. For example, assume that "Mr. Burns" and "Ms. Colder" enter into an agreement whereby Colder agrees to pay Burns $125 if he will cut and deliver a cord of oak firewood to her home on December 10. If Burns does not deliver the wood on that date, he has breached the contract and Colder may sue him for damages.

Although many contracts are relatively simple and straightforward, some complex fields also build on contract law or contract ideas. One such field is commercial law, which focuses primarily on sales involving credit or the installment plan. Commercial law also deals with checks, promissory notes, and other negotiable financial instruments.

Another closely related field is bankruptcy and creditors' rights. Bankrupt individuals or businesses may go through a process that essentially wipes the slate clean and allows the person filing for bankruptcy to begin again. The bankruptcy process is also designed to ensure fairness to creditors. Bankruptcy law has been a major concern of legislators for several years, and a large number of special bankruptcy judges are now attached to the U.S. district courts.

Tort law may generally be described as the law of civil wrongs. It concerns conduct that causes injury and fails to measure up to some standard set by society.

Actions for personal injury or bodily injury claims are at the heart of tort law, and automobile accidents have traditionally been responsible for a large number of these claims. One of the most rapidly growing subfields of tort law is product liability. This category has become an increasingly effective way to hold corporations accountable for injuries caused by defective foods, toys, appliances, automobiles, drugs, or a host of other products.

Perhaps one reason for the growth in product liability cases is a change in the standard of proof. Traditionally, negligence (generally defined as carelessness or the failure to use ordinary care, under the particular circumstances revealed in the lawsuit) must be proven before one person is able to collect damages for injuries caused by someone else. However, some have argued that for many years reliance on the negligence concept has been declining, especially in product liability cases. In its place, the courts often use a strict liability standard, which means that a victim can recover even if there was no negligence and even if the manufacturer was careful.

Another reason commonly suggested for the growth in the number of product liability cases is the size of jury awards when the decision favors the plaintiff. Jury awards for damages may be of two types: compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are intended to cover the plaintiff's actual loss, such as repair costs, doctor bills, and hospital expenses. Punitive (or exemplary) damages are designed, instead, to punish the defendant or serve as a warning against such behavior in the future.

As a result of concern over large jury awards and the increasing number of so-called frivolous cases, government officials, corporate executives, interest groups, and members of the legal community have called for legislation aimed at tort reform. Throughout the 1990s a number of states enacted a variety of tort reform measures. The American Tort Reform Association, which serves as an advocate of tort reform, reports that states have limited awards for noneconomic damages, modified their laws governing punitive damages, or enacted statutes penalizing plaintiffs who file frivolous lawsuits.

Another rapidly growing subfield of tort law is medical malpractice. The number of medical malpractice claims has increased even as great advances have been made in medicine. Two ongoing problems in contemporary medicine are the increased risk imposed by new treatments and the impersonal character of specialists and hospitals. Patients today have high expectations, and when a doctor fails them, their anger may lead to a malpractice suit.

A distinction has traditionally been made between real property and personal property. The former normally refers to real estate -- land, houses, and buildings -- and has also included growing crops. Almost everything else is considered personal property, including such things as money, jewelry, automobiles, furniture, and bank deposits.

According to Lawrence M. Friedman in American Law, "As far as the law is concerned, the word property means primarily real property; personal property is of minor importance." No single special field of law is devoted to personal property. Instead, personal property is generally considered under the rubric of contract law, commercial law, and bankruptcy law.

Property rights have always been important in the United States, but today property rights are more complex than mere ownership of something. The notion of property now includes, among several other things, the right to use that property.

One important branch of property law today deals with land use controls. The most common type of land use restriction is zoning, a practice whereby local laws divide a municipality into districts designated for different uses. For instance, one neighborhood may be designated as residential, another as commercial, and yet another as industrial.

The law of succession considers how property is passed along from one generation to another. The American legal system recognizes a person's right to dispose of his or her property as he or she wishes. One common way to do this is to execute a will. If a person leaves behind a valid will, the courts will enforce it. However, if someone leaves no will (or has improperly drawn it up), then the person has died intestate, and the state must dispose of the property.

The state's disposition of the property is carried out according to the fixed scheme set forth in the state statutes. By law, intestate property passes to the deceased person's heirs -- that is, to his or her nearest relatives. Occasionally a person who dies intestate has no living relatives. In that situation the property escheats, or passes, to the state in which the deceased resided. State statutes often prohibit the more remote relatives, such as second cousins and great uncles and aunts, from inheriting.

Family law concerns such matters as marriage, divorce, child custody, and children's rights. It clearly touches the lives of a great number of Americans each year.

The conditions necessary for entering into a marriage are spelled out by state law. These laws traditionally cover the minimum age of the parties, required blood tests or physical examinations, mental conditions of the parties, license and fee requirements, and waiting periods.

The termination of a marriage was once very rare. In the early 19th century some states granted divorces only through special acts of the legislature; one state, South Carolina, simply did not allow divorce. In the other states divorces were granted only when one party proved some grounds for divorce. In other words, divorces were available only to innocent parties whose spouses were guilty of such things as adultery, desertion, or cruelty.

The 20th century saw an enormous change in divorce laws. The movement was away from restrictive laws and toward no-fault divorce. This trend was the result of two factors. First, for many years there was an increasing demand for divorces. Second, the stigma once attached to divorced persons all but disappeared.

The no-fault divorce system means that the parties simply explain that irreconcilable differences exist between them and that the marriage is no longer viable. The no-fault divorce system has put an end to the adversarial nature of divorce proceedings.

In practice few persons make use of the entire judicial process. Instead, most cases are settled without resort to a full-fledged trial. In civil cases, a trial may be both slow and expensive. In many areas the backlogs are so enormous that it takes three to five years for a case to come to trial. In addition, civil trials may be exceedingly complex.

Often, the expense of a trial is enough to discourage potential plaintiffs. The possibility of losing always exists. The possibility of a long wait also always exists, even if a plaintiff wins, before the judgment is satisfied -- that is, if it is ever completely satisfied. In other words, a trial may simply create a new set of problems for the parties concerned. For all these reasons, more and more discussion has been heard about alternative methods of resolving disputes.

From major corporations to attorneys to individuals, support for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been growing. Corporate America is interested in avoiding prolonged and costly court battles as the only way to settle complex business disputes. In addition, attorneys are more frequently considering alternatives such as mediation and arbitration where there is a need for faster resolution of cases or confidential treatment of certain matters. And individual citizens are increasingly turning to local mediation services for help in resolving family disputes, neighborhood quarrels, and consumer complaints.

Alternative dispute resolution processes are carried out under a variety of models. These models are commonly classified as "private, court-referred, and court-annexed, but the latter two together often are called court-connected," writes Susan L. Keita in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management. In other words, some private ADR processes function independently of the courts. A court-referred ADR process is one that operates outside the court itself but still has some relationship to the court. The court administers the ADR process in a court-annexed program. Depending on the model and the issue, "ADR processes may be voluntary or mandatory; they may be binding or allow appeals from decisions rendered; and they may be consensual, adjudicatory, or some hybrid of the two," according to Keita. Some commonly used ADR processes are mediation, arbitration, neutral fact-finding, mini-trial, summary jury trial, and private judging.

Mediation. Mediation is a private, confidential process in which an impartial person helps the disputing parties identify and clarify issues of concern and reach their own agreement. The mediator does not act as a judge. Instead, the parties themselves maintain control of the final settlement.

Mediation is especially appropriate for situations in which the disputants have an ongoing relationship, such as disputes between family members, neighbors, employers and employees, and landlords and tenants. Mediation is also useful in divorce cases because it changes the procedure from one of confrontation to one of cooperation. Child custody and visitation rights are frequently resolved through mediation as well. And in many areas, personal injury and property claims involving insurance companies are settled through mediation.

Arbitration. The arbitration process is similar to going to court. After listening to both parties in a dispute, an impartial person called an arbitrator decides how the controversy should be resolved. There is no judge or jury. Instead, the arbitrator selected by both parties makes the final decision. Arbitrators are drawn from all different types of professional backgrounds and frequently volunteer their time to help people resolve their problems.

Disputants choose arbitration because it saves time and money and is more informal than a court hearing. Most arbitrations are completed in four months or less, as compared with six months to several years for court decisions.

Arbitration is used privately to resolve a variety of consumer complaints. Examples include disputes over poor automobile repairs, problems with the return of faulty merchandise, and overcharging for services. Arbitration is also being used in court-referred and court-annexed processes to resolve several types of disputes, including business, commercial, and employment disputes.

Neutral Fact-Finding. Neutral fact-finding is an informal process whereby an agreed-upon neutral party is asked to investigate a dispute. Usually, the dispute involves complex or technical issues. The neutral third party analyzes the disputed facts and issues his or her findings in a nonbinding report or recommendation.

This process can be particularly useful in handling allegations of racial or gender discrimination within a company because such cases often provoke strong emotions and internal dissension. If both parties are employees of the same company, conflicts of interest could interfere with a supervisor or manager's ability to conduct an impartial investigation of alleged discrimination. To avoid the appearance of unfairness, a company may turn to a neutral third party in hopes of reaching a settlement all the employees can respect.

Mini-Trial. In a mini-trial each party presents its position in a trial-like fashion before a panel that consists of selected representatives for both parties and neutral third parties. Every panel has one neutral advisor. Mini-trials are designed to help define the issues and develop a basis for realistic settlement negotiations. The representatives from the two sides present an overview of their positions and arguments to the panel. As a result, each party becomes more knowledgeable about the other party's position. Having heard each side's presentation, the panel, including the advisor, meets to develop a compromise solution. The neutral advisor may also issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the case. This advisory opinion is nonbinding unless the parties have agreed in writing beforehand to be bound by it.

The primary benefit of a mini-trial is that both parties have an opportunity to develop solutions. It also means that each has representation and access to detailed information.

Summary Jury Trial. A summary jury trial involves a court-managed process that takes place after a case has been filed, but before it reaches trial. In a summary jury trial each party presents its arguments to a jury (normally six persons). An overview of each side's argument as well as abbreviated opening and closing arguments are presented. Attorneys are typically given a short amount of time (an hour or less) for their presentations. They are limited to the presentation of information that would be admissible at trial. No testimony is taken from sworn witnesses, and proceedings are generally not recorded. Because the proceedings are nonbinding, rules of procedure and evidence are more flexible than in a normal trial.

The jury hands down an advisory, nonbinding decision based on the arguments presented. In this setting, the verdict is designed to give the attorneys and their clients insight into their cases. It may also suggest a basis for settlement of the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved during or immediately following the summary jury trial proceeding, a pretrial conference is held before the court to discuss settlement.

One of the major advantages of a summary jury trial is the time involved. A summary jury trial is typically concluded in less than a day compared to several days or weeks for full-fledged trials.

The state court systems are frequently characterized by a number of specialized courts that are set up to handle specific types of civil cases. Domestic relations courts are often established to deal with such matters as divorce, child custody, and child support. In many jurisdictions probate courts handle the settlement of estates and the contesting of wills.

A number of government agencies have also established administrative bodies with quasi-judicial authority to handle certain types of cases. At the federal level, for example, agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission carry out an adjudication of sorts within their respective spheres of authority. An appeal of the ruling of one of these agencies may be taken to a federal court of appeals.

A number of disputes are resolved through some method of alternative dispute resolution, in a specialized court, or by an administrative body. However, a large number of cases each year still manage to find their way into a civil court.

Generally speaking, the adversarial process used in criminal trials is also used in civil trials, with just a few important differences. First, a litigant must have standing. This concept means simply that the person initiating the suit must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Otherwise, there is no real controversy between the parties and thus no actual case for the court to decide.

A second major difference is that the standard of proof used in civil cases is a preponderance of the evidence, not the more stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal cases. A preponderance of the evidence is generally taken to mean that there is sufficient evidence to overcome doubt or speculation. It clearly means that less proof is required in civil cases than in criminal cases.

The person initiating the civil suit is known as the plaintiff, and the person being sued is the defendant or the respondent. A civil action is known by the names of the plaintiff and the defendant, such as Jones v. Miller. The plaintiff's name appears first. In a typical situation, the plaintiff's attorney pays a fee and files a complaint or petition with the clerk of the proper court. The complaint states the facts on which the action is based, the damages alleged, and the judgment or relief being sought.

The decision about which court should actually hear the case involves the concepts of jurisdiction and venue: Jurisdiction deals with a court's authority to exercise judicial power, and venue means the place where that power should be exercised.

Jurisdictional requirements are satisfied when the court has legal authority over both the subject matter and the person of the defendant. This means that several courts can have jurisdiction over the same case. Suppose, for example, that a resident of Dayton, Ohio, is seriously injured in an automobile accident in Tennessee when the car he is driving is struck from the rear by a car driven by a resident of Kingsport, Tennessee. Total damages to the Ohio driver and car come to about $80,000. A state trial court in Ohio has subject matter jurisdiction, and Ohio can in all likelihood obtain jurisdiction over the defendant. In addition, the state courts of Tennessee probably have jurisdiction. Federal district courts in both Ohio and Tennessee also have jurisdiction because diversity of citizenship exists and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. Assuming that jurisdiction is the only concern, the plaintiff can sue in any of these courts.

The determination of proper venue may be prescribed by statute based on avoiding possible prejudice, or it may simply be a matter of convenience. The federal law states that proper venue is the district in which either the plaintiff or defendant resides, or the district where the injury occurred. State venue statutes vary somewhat, but they usually provide that where land is involved, proper venue is the county where the land is located. In most other instances venue is the county where the defendant resides.

Venue questions may also be related to the perceived or feared prejudice of either the judge or the prospective jury. Attorneys sometimes object to trials being held in a particular area for this reason and may move for a change of venue. Although this type of objection is perhaps more commonly associated with highly publicized criminal trials, it is also found in civil trials.

Once the appropriate court has been determined and the complaint has been filed, the court clerk will attach a copy of the complaint to a summons, which is then issued to the defendant. The summons may be served by personnel from the sheriff's office, a U.S. marshal, or a private process-service agency.

The summons directs the defendant to file a response, known as a pleading, within a certain period of time (usually 30 days). If the defendant does not do so, then he or she may be subject to a default judgment.

Motions. Once the summons has been served on the defendant, a number of motions can be made by the defense attorney. A motion to quash requests that the court void the summons on the ground that it was not properly served. For example, a defendant might contend that the summons was never delivered personally as required by state law.

Two types of motions are meant to clarify or to object to the plaintiff's petition. A motion to strike requests that the court excise, or strike, certain parts of the petition because they are prejudicial, improper, or irrelevant. A motion to make more definite asks the court to require the plaintiff to be more specific about the complaints.

A fourth type of motion often filed in a civil case is a motion to dismiss. This motion may argue that the court lacks jurisdiction, or it may insist that the plaintiff has not presented a legally sound basis for action against the defendant even if the allegations are true.

The Answer. If the complaint survives the judge's rulings on the motions, then the defendant submits an answer to the complaint. The response may contain admissions, denials, defenses, and counterclaims. When an admission is contained in an answer, there is no need to prove that fact during the trial. A denial, however, brings up a factual issue to be proven during the trial. A defense says that certain facts set forth in the answer may bar the plaintiff from recovering damages.

The defendant may also create a separate action known as a counterclaim. If the defendant thinks that a cause of action against the plaintiff arises from the same set of events, then he or she must present the claim to the court in response to the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff may file a reply to the defendant's answer. In that reply, the plaintiff may admit, deny, or defend against the allegations of fact contained in the counterclaim.

Discovery. The U.S. legal system provides for discovery procedures; that is, each party is entitled to information in the possession of the other. There are several tools of discovery:

The Pretrial Conference. Before going to court, the judge may call a pretrial conference to discuss the issues in the case informally with the opposing attorneys. The general practice is to allow only the judge and the lawyers to attend the conference, which is normally held in the judge's chambers.

At this meeting, the judge and the attorneys try to come to agreement on uncontested factual issues, which are known as stipulations. The purpose of stipulations is to make the actual trial more efficient by reducing the number of issues that must be argued in court. The attorneys also share with each other a list of witnesses and documents that are part of each case.

Selection of Jury. The right to a jury trial in a civil suit in a federal court is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions likewise provide for such a right. A jury trial may be waived, in which case the judge decides the matter. Although the jury traditionally consists of 12 persons, today the number varies. Most of the federal district courts now use juries of fewer than 12 persons in civil cases. A majority of states also authorize smaller juries in some or all civil trials.

As in criminal trials, jurors must be selected in a random manner from a fair cross-section of the community. A large panel of jurors is called to the courthouse, and when a case is assigned to a court for trial, a smaller group of prospective jurors is sent to a particular courtroom.

Following the voir dire examination, which may include challenges to certain jurors by the attorneys, a jury to hear the particular case will be seated. Lawyers may challenge a prospective juror for cause, in which case the judge must determine whether the person challenged is impartial. Each side may also exercise a certain number of peremptory challenges -- excusing a juror without stating any reason. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of such challenges to disqualify jurors from civil trials because of their race or gender. Peremptory challenges are fixed by statute or court rule and normally range from two to six.

Opening Statements. After the jury has been chosen, the attorneys present their opening statements. The plaintiff's attorney begins. He or she explains to the jury what the case is about and what the plaintiff's side expects to prove. The defendant's lawyer can usually choose either to make an opening statement immediately after the plaintiff's attorney finishes or to wait until the plaintiff's case has been completely presented. If the defendant's attorney waits, he or she will present the entire case for the defendant continuously, from opening statement onward. Opening statements are valuable because they outline the case and make it easier for the jury to understand the evidence as it is presented.

Presentation of the Plaintiff's Case. In the normal civil case, the plaintiff's side is first to present and attempt to prove its case to the jury and last to make closing arguments. In presenting the case, the plaintiff's lawyer will normally call witnesses to testify and produce documents or other exhibits.

When a witness is called, he or she will undergo direct examination by the plaintiff's attorney. Then the defendant's attorney will have the opportunity to ask questions or cross-examine the witness. The Arizona Supreme Court recently took steps to help jurors do a better job of making decisions in civil cases. Among other things, the state's highest court voted to allow jurors to pose written questions to witnesses through the judge. Other states are considering implementing Arizona's new practice. Following the cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer may conduct a redirect examination, which may then be followed by a second cross-examination by the defendant's lawyer.

Generally speaking, witnesses may testify only about matters they have actually observed; they may not express their opinions. However, an important exception to this general rule is that expert witnesses are specifically called upon to give their opinions in matters within their areas of expertise.

To qualify as an expert witness, a person must possess substantial knowledge about a particular field. Furthermore, this knowledge must normally be established in open court. Both sides often present experts whose opinions are contradictory. When this happens, the jury must ultimately decide which opinion is the correct one.

When the plaintiff's side has presented all its evidence, the attorney rests the case.

Motion for Directed Verdict. After the plaintiff's case has been rested, the defendant will often make a motion for a directed verdict. With the filing of this motion, the defendant is saying that the plaintiff has not proved his or her case and thus should lose. The judge must then decide whether the plaintiff could win at this point if court proceedings were to cease. Should the judge determine that the plaintiff has not presented convincing enough evidence, he or she will sustain the motion and direct the verdict for the defendant. Thus the plaintiff will lose the case. The motion for a directed verdict is similar to the pretrial motion to dismiss.

Presentation of the Defendant's Case. If the motion for a directed verdict is overruled, the defendant then presents evidence. The defendant's case is presented in the same way as the plaintiff's case. That is, there is direct examination of witnesses and presentation of documents and other exhibits. The plaintiff has the right to cross-examine witnesses. Redirect and recross questions may follow.

Plaintiff's Rebuttal. After the presentation of the defendant's case, the plaintiff may bring forth rebuttal evidence, which is aimed at refuting the defendant's evidence.

Answer to Plaintiff's Rebuttal. The defendant's lawyer may present evidence to counter the rebuttal evidence. This rebuttal-and-answer pattern may continue until the evidence has been exhausted.

Closing Arguments. After all the evidence has been presented, the lawyers make closing arguments, or summations, to the jury. The plaintiff's attorney speaks both first and last. That is, he or she both opens the argument and closes it, and the defendant's lawyer argues in between. In this stage of the process each attorney attacks the opponent's evidence for its unreliability and may also attempt to discredit the opponent's witnesses. In doing so, the lawyers often wax eloquent or deliver an emotional appeal to the jury. However, the arguments must be based upon facts supported by the evidence and introduced at the trial.

Instructions to the Jury. Assuming that a jury trial has not been waived, the instructions to the jury follow the conclusion of the closing arguments. The judge informs the jury that it must base its verdict on the evidence presented at the trial. The judge's instructions also inform the jurors about the rules, principles, and standards of the particular legal concept involved. In civil cases a finding for the plaintiff is based on a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the jurors must weigh the evidence presented during the trial and determine in their minds that the greater weight of the evidence, in merit and in worth, favors the plaintiff.

The Verdict. The jury retires to the seclusion of the jury room to conduct its deliberations. The members must reach a verdict without outside contact. In some instances the deliberations are so long and detailed that the jurors must be provided meals and sleeping accommodations until they can reach a verdict. The verdict, then, represents the jurors' agreement after detailed discussions and analyses of the evidence. Sometimes the jury deliberates in all good faith but cannot reach a verdict. When this occurs, the judge may declare a mistrial. This means that a new trial may have to be conducted.

After the verdict is reached, the jury is conducted back into open court, where it delivers its verdict to the judge. The parties are informed of the verdict. It is then customary for the jury to be polled -- the jurors are individually asked by the judge whether they agree with the verdict.

Post-trial Motions. Once the verdict has been reached, a dissatisfied party may pursue a variety of tactics. The losing party may file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This type of motion is granted when the judge decides that reasonable persons could not have rendered the verdict the jury reached.

The losing party may also file a motion for a new trial. The usual basis for this motion is that the verdict goes against the weight of the evidence. The judge will grant the motion on this ground if he or she agrees that the evidence presented simply does not support the verdict reached by the jury. A new trial may also be granted for a number of other reasons: excessive damages, grossly inadequate damages, the discovery of new evidence, and errors in the production of evidence, to name a few.

In some cases the losing party also files a motion for relief from judgment. This type of motion may be granted if the judge finds a clerical error in the judgment, discovers some new evidence, or determines that the judgment was induced by fraud.

Judgment and Execution. A verdict in favor of the defendant ends the trial, but a verdict for the plaintiff requires another stage in the process. There is no sentence in a civil case, but there must be a determination of the remedy or damages to be assessed. This determination is called the judgment.

In situations where the judgment is for monetary damages and the defendant does not voluntarily pay the set amount, the plaintiff can ask to have the court clerk issue an order to execute the judgment. The execution is issued to the sheriff and orders the sheriff to seize the defendant's property and sell it at auction to satisfy the judgment. An alternative is to order a lien, which is the legal right to hold property that may be used for the payment of the judgment.

Appeal. If one party feels that an error of law was made during the trial, and if the judge refuses to grant a posttrial motion for a new trial, then the dissatisfied party may appeal to a higher court. Probably the most common grounds for appeal are that the judge allegedly admitted evidence that should have been excluded, refused to admit evidence that should have been introduced, or failed to give proper jury instructions.