I've been reading an otherwise very fine law review article on the relationship of law and equity, which is flawed (IMHO) by its exclusive focus on US Supreme Court cases. Would the author's analysis not have been better served by also considering the unique status of the three remaining state judicial systems--Delaware, Mississippi, and Tennessee--that retain separate equity courts? Might he not especially have wanted to examine the workings of the Delaware Court of Chancery, of which prominent federal judge Jed Rakoff has written that:
I think it is substantially wrong to view the Delaware Chancery Court as a specialized court, at least in the sense of a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction. In actuality, the jurisdiction of the Delaware Chancery Court is very broad, comprising the extensive equity jurisdiction that marked the reach of the English High Court of Chancery back in the days when the courts of England were divided between the courts of law and the courts of equity. If, then, the Delaware Court of Chancery speaks with the clarity and vision of a generalist court, it is because it really is, fundamentally, a generalist court. Because, however, its jurisdiction includes so much of Delaware corporate law, and because so many large corporations are incorporated in Delaware, its decisions have a huge impact on the development of corporate law everywhere.
Surely that unique blend deserves at least mention, yes?