Abstract
Those who called for the fusion of law and equity have, throughout the years, argued that the existence of a parallel court system for equity would be inefficient and confusing for parties. While there is limited merit to this viewpoint, the United States has been willing to create courts of limited jurisdiction to hear cases of a highly specialized or technical nature in other areas of the law (for example, tax and bankruptcy). This Note argues that the specialized-courts approach is viable as it relates to equity and that it is, in fact, preferable to the current system. This Note will also serve as a valuable resource for future scholars of equity. Despite a recent groundswell of academic interest in equity, no work has conducted a fifty-state survey on the history of state equity courts, nor has any work collected sources about these courts. This Note will provide a collection of such sources and will feature brief discussions of certain states’ approaches to equity. Part I will provide a collection of arguments for and against equity courts throughout the history of the United States. Part II will provide technical details of state equity jurisdictions throughout American history and will demonstrate (1) that total merger is less common that is commonly thought, and (2) that states that have rejected total merger have managed to do so in a way that has been tenable for parties. Part III will argue that the costs imposed by merger are substantial enough to justify incurring the costs needed to undo it.
Recommended Citation
Brooks M. Chupp,
"A Sword in the Bed": Bringing an End to the Fusion of Law and Equity,
98
Notre Dame L. Rev.
465
(2022).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol98/iss1/8