Lawsuit

== Rules of procedure and complications ==
Rules of criminal or [[civil procedure]] govern the conduct of a lawsuit in the [[common law]] [[adversarial system]] of dispute resolution. Procedural rules arise from [[statutory law]], [[case law]], and constitutional provisions (especially the right to [[due process]]). The details of each kind of legal procedure differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and often from court to court even within the same jurisdiction. It is important for litigants to be aware of all relevant procedural rules (or to hire competent counsel who can either comply with such rules on their behalf or explain the rules to them), because the litigants ultimately dictate the timing and progression of the lawsuit. Litigants are responsible for obtaining the desired result and the timing of reaching this result. Failure to comply with procedural rules may result in serious limitations that can affect the ability of one to present claims or defenses at any subsequent trial, or even lead to the dismissal of the lawsuit altogether.

Though the majority of lawsuits are settled before ever reaching trial, they can still be very complicated to litigate. This is particularly true in [[federalism|federal]] systems, where a federal court may be applying state law (e.g. the [[Erie doctrine|''Erie'' doctrine]], for example in the [[United States]]),<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Galanter |first1=Marc |last2=Cahill |first2=Mia |title=Most Cases Settle: Judicial Promotion and Regulation of Settlements |journal=Stanford Law Review |date=1993 |volume=46 |issue=6 |pages=1339–1391 |doi=10.2307/1229161 |jstor=1229161 }}</ref> or vice versa. It is also possible for one state to apply the law of another in cases where additionally it may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has [[jurisdiction]] over the claim or [[personal jurisdiction]] over the defendant, or whether the plaintiff has [[standing (law)|standing]] to participate in a lawsuit. About 98 percent of civil cases in the [[United States federal courts]] are resolved without a trial. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not even have the ability to enforce a judgment if the defendant's assets are theoretically outside their reach.

Lawsuits can become additionally complicated as more parties become involved (see [[joinder]]). Within a "single" lawsuit, there can be any number of claims and defenses (all based on numerous laws) between any number of plaintiffs or defendants. Each of these participants can bring any number of cross claims and counterclaims against each other, and even bring additional parties into the suit on either side after it progresses. In reality however, courts typically have some power to sever claims and parties into separate actions if it is more efficient to do so. A court can do this if there is not a sufficient overlap of factual issues between the various associates, separating the issues into different lawsuits.

The official ruling of a lawsuit can be somewhat misleading because post-ruling outcomes are often not listed on the internet. For example, in the case of William J. Ralph Jr. v. Lind-Waldock & Company<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrdispositions/documents/legalpleading/idralph092100.pdf|title=WILLIAM J. RALPH, JR., Complainant, v. LIND-WALDOCK & COMPANY and JEFFREY KUNST, Respondents|website=Cftc.gov|access-date=3 October 2017}}</ref> (September 1999), one would assume that Ralph lost the case when in fact, upon review of the evidence, it was found that Ralph was correct in his assertion that improper activity took place on the part of Lind-Waldock, and Ralph settled with Lind-Waldock.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrdispositions/documents/legalpleading/idralph32402.pdf|title=WILLIAM J. RALPH, JR., Complainant, v. LIND-WALDOCK & COMPANY, Respondent|website=Cftc.gov|access-date=3 October 2017}}</ref>

Cases such as this illustrate the need for more comprehensive information than mere internet searches when researching legal decisions. While online searches are appropriate for many legal situations, they are not appropriate for all.