---
title: U.S. Const. Amend. VII. Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
collection: code
id: us-const:amend-vii
cite_as: U.S. Const. Amend. VII
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-vii
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-vii.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-vii/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/1us-const-(v1)-2025-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=328b75b8_0#page=1074
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-vi.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-viii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 23571
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-vii.md?notes=all&start=11282
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
heading_path: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION / Amendments
---

# U.S. Const. Amend. VII. Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and 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.

## Cross References

Right to trial by jury, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. XI and §§ 9-11-38, 9-11-39.

Grand juries, § 15-12-60 et seq.

## Editor's Notes

This amendment curtails the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court granted in U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, as to questions of fact.

## Law Reviews

For comment on Hibdon v. United States, 204 F.2d 834 (6th Cir. 1953), reversing a felony conviction decided by a majority verdict upon the accused’s waiver of a unanimous verdict induced by the trial court, see 16 Ga. B.J. 234 (1953).

For article, “Jury Trials in Contempt Cases,” see 20 Ga. B.J. 297 (1957).

For comment discussing limits on the military’s jurisdiction and the constitutional rights of servicemen in light of O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S. Ct. 1683, 23 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1969), see 21 Mercer L. Rev. 311 (1969).

For article on the judicial development of the due process clause of U.S. Const., amend. 14 and the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights, see 22 Mercer L. Rev. 533 (1971).

For note discussing televised and photographic coverage of court proceedings in light of the individuals’ right to a fair trial, see 29 Mercer L. Rev. 1099 (1978).

For comment discussing the forcible medication of involuntarily committed mental patients with antipsychotic drugs in light of Rogers v. Okin, 634 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1980), see 15 Ga. L. Rev. 739 (1981).

For comment on Cotten v. Witco Chem. Corp., 651 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 3565 (Jan. 18, 1982), and discussion of complex cases and the seventh amendment, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 1353 (1982).

For article, “Mass Torts and Litigation Disasters,” see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 429 (1986).

For article, “A Comment on Mass Torts and Litigation Disasters,” see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 455 (1986).

For comment, “Summary Judgment: The Majority View Undergoes a Complete Reversal in the 1986 Supreme Court,” see 37 Emory L.J. 171 (1988).

For article, “The Endangered Right of Jury Trials in Dispossessories,” see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 126 (1988).

For article, “The Structure of Rights,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 415 (1993).

For article, “Rights as Trumps,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 463 (1993).

For article, “Further Reflections on Rights and Interests: A Reply,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 489 (1993).

For article, “Utopian Dangers: Chemer-insky’s ‘Right to Minimum Subsistence’,” see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 553 (1993).

For article, “The Peremptory Challenge: A Lost Cause,” see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 579 (1993).

For article, “Article II Courts,” see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 825 (1993).

For note, “In re Grabill Corporation; Appeal of NCNB National Bank of North Carolina: Four to One Against Jury Trials in Bankruptcy Courts,” see 44 Mercer L. Rev. 1415 (1993).

For article on constitutional criminal procedure, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 1305 (2001).

For article, “The Right to a Jury Decision on Sentencing Facts after Booker: What the Seventh Amendment Can Teach the Sixth,” 39 Ga. L. Rev. 895 (2005).

For article, “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Legal Realism as a Jurisprudence of Law Reform,” see 44 Ga. L. Rev. 433 (2010).

For note, “ERISA’s Remedial Irony: Narrow Interpretation Paves the Way for Jury Trials in Suits for Breach of Fidu-ciary Duty Under ERISA,” see 26 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 971 (2010).

For article, “Confusion Codified: Why Trademark Remedies Make No Sense,” see 17 J. Intell. Prop. L. 245 (2010).

For article, “Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2013 — December 31, 2013: Article: Labor and Employment,” see 65 Emory L. J. 1067 (2014).

For article, “Judging Congressional Elections,” see 51 Ga. L. Rev. 359 (2017).

For article, “Medical Malpractice as Worker’s Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform,” see 67 Emory L.J. 975 (2018).

For article, “The Impropriety of Punitive Damages in Mass Torts,” see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2018).

For note, “Who Determines What Is Egregious? Judge or Jury: Enhanced Damages After Halo v. Pulse,” see 34 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 389 (2018).

For annual survey on class actions, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 895 (2019).

For note, “Reluctance or Apathy? Examining Georgia’s Continued Adherence to a Strict Mutuality Issue Preclusion Doctrine,” see 37 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 541 (2021).

## Scope and Purpose Generally.

U.S. Const., amend. 7 preserves the right which existed under the common law when the amendment was adopted. The phrase “common law” found in U.S. Const., amend. 7 is used in contradistinction to equity, admiralty, and maritime jurisprudence. Thus it has no application to cases where recovery of money damages is an incident to equitable relief even though damages might have been recovered in an action at law. It does not apply where the proceeding is not in the nature of a suit at common law. Wirtz v. Alapaha Yellow Pine Prods., Inc., 217 F. Supp. 465, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6953 (M.D. Ga. 1963).

U.S. Const., amend. 7 preserves to litigants the right to jury trial in suits at common law not merely suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered. In a just sense, U.S. Const., amend. 7 then may well be construed to embrace all suits, which are not of equity and admiralty jurisdiction, whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume to settle legal rights. Murphy v. American Motors Sales Corp., 410 F. Supp. 1403, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15676 (N.D. Ga. 1976), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 570 F.2d 1226, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11864 (5th Cir. 1978).

By “common law,” the framers of U.S. Const., amend. 7 meant not merely suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered. FDIC v. New London Enters., Ltd., 619 F.2d 1099, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16300 (5th Cir. 1980). tory of the existing law, for it required only that jury trial in suits at common law was to be “preserved.” It thus did not purport to require a jury trial where none was required before. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442, 97 S. Ct. 1261, 51 L. Ed. 2d 464, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 65 (1977), superseded by statute as stated in, In re United Mo. Bank, N.A., 901 F.2d 1449, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6290 (8th Cir. 1990).

The phrase “suits at common law” has been construed to refer to cases tried prior to the adoption of U.S. Const., amend. 7 in courts of law in which jury trial was customary, as distinguished from courts of equity or admiralty, in which jury trial was not. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442, 97 S. Ct. 1261, 51 L. Ed. 2d 464, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 65 (1977), superseded by statute as stated in, In re United Mo. Bank, N.A., 901 F.2d 1449, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 6290 (8th Cir. 1990).

Right extends beyond common-law

## U.s. Const., Amend. 7 Was Declaraactions Recognized at Time of Adoption.

Although the thrust of U.S. Const., amend. 7 was to preserve the right to jury trial as it existed in 1791, it has long been settled that the right extends beyond the common-law forms of action recognized at that time. FDIC v. New London Enters., Ltd., 619 F.2d 1099, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16300 (5th Cir. 1980).

This right extends beyond common-law causes of action that existed at the time of the amendment’s adoption. Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Serv., 677 F.2d 830, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18704 (11th Cir. 1982).

U.S. Const., amend. 7 requires trial by jury in actions unheard of at common law, provided that the action involves rights and remedies of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in an action in equity or admiralty. Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Serv., 677 F.2d 830, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18704 (11th Cir. 1982).

Right to jury trial only when issues

## Of Material Fact in Dispute.

The right to a jury trial is not infringed where the jury would have no role because there are no issues of material fact in dispute. CM3, Inc. v. Associated Realty Investors/Prado, 201 Ga. App. 428, 411 S.E.2d 320, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1439 (1991). teed only for the resolution of legal claims. Schofield v. Stetson, 459 F. Supp. 998, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14301 (M.D. Ga. 1978).

If a case involves only equitable issues, trial by jury is not guaranteed by U.S. Const., amend. 7. Duncan v. First Nat’l Bank, 597 F.2d 51, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14018 (5th Cir. 1979).

Where the whole case is equitable in nature there is no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Frith, 645 F.2d 6, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13276 (5th Cir. 1981).

Jury trial dependent on whether

## Jury Trial Is Allowed and Guaranissue Is Legal or Equitable.

Whether a party is entitled to a jury trial depends on whether the issue before the court is legal or equitable. Stamps v. Sexton Bros. Tire Co. (In re Major Tire Co.), 64 B.R. 305, 1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5477 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1986).

Where legal claims are joined with equitable claims, the right to a jury trial on the legal claims, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact. The right cannot be abridged by characterizing the legal relief sought as being incidental to the equitable claim. Murphy v. American Motors Sales Corp., 410 F. Supp. 1403, 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15676 (N.D. Ga. 1976), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 570 F.2d 1226, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 11864 (5th Cir. 1978).

## Jury Trial If Legal Issues.

Where both legal and equitable issues are presented in a case, even when the legal issues are incidental to the equitable issues, the legal issues must be presented to a jury. Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co., 296 F. Supp. 1232, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12605 (N.D. Ga. 1968), rev’d, 421 F.2d 888, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 11301 (5th Cir. 1970).

When legal and equitable actions are tried together, the right to a jury in the legal action encompasses the issues common to both. Lincoln v. Board of Regents, 697 F.2d 928, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30644 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826, 104 S. Ct. 97, 78 L. Ed. 2d 102, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 1180 (1983).

It makes no difference if the equigal cause so that the basic issue of the case taken as a whole is equitable; as long as any legal cause is involved the jury rights it creates control. United States v. McMahan, 569 F.2d 889, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12112 (5th Cir. 1978); Duncan v. First Nat’l Bank, 597 F.2d 51, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14018 (5th Cir. 1979).

Loss of right to jury trial through prior determination of equitable

## Table Cause Clearly Outweighs the Leclaims.

Where both legal and equitable issues are presented in a single case, only under the most imperative circumstances can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims. This applies whether the trial judge chooses to characterize the legal issues presented as incidental to equitable issues or not. United States v. McMahan, 569 F.2d 889, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 12112 (5th Cir. 1978).


> The printed notes continue for 23,571 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/amend-vii.md?notes=all&start=11282