Definition
Regulæ Generales (Latin: "general rules") refers to the standing procedural rules promulgated by a court to govern its own practice and administration. These rules are issued by the court on its own authority, periodically revised or supplemented, and bind practitioners appearing before that court. They are distinct from rules of substantive law and from rules enacted by a legislature; they originate in the inherent power of courts to regulate their own proceedings.
In historical English practice, Regulæ Generales were orders of general application issued by the common law courts — principally the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer — to manage procedural matters such as filing deadlines, pleading requirements, the conduct of officers of the court, and the terms of practice. They were distinguished from rules made in a particular case (Regulæ Speciales), which bound only the parties to that proceeding.
---
Common Confusion
The term is occasionally conflated with judicial orders or decrees issued in specific litigation. The distinction matters: Regulæ Generales have the character of standing institutional policy, applying prospectively and generally to all practitioners and proceedings before the court. A rule issued to resolve a dispute between particular parties is not a Regula Generalis, even if it announces a broad principle. Researchers encountering the term in historical records should confirm they are reading a court-wide procedural promulgation, not a case-specific direction.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This is primarily a historical term. Researchers working in English legal records from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries will encounter Regulæ Generales as a category of court-issued procedural authority that sits outside both statute and reported case law. They are easy to overlook precisely because they are not cases and are not always indexed with the same rigor as parliamentary legislation.
Several practical traps exist for corpus researchers:
First, these rules were often published in separate volumes or appended to practice manuals rather than in law reports. A researcher relying solely on case reporters may miss the procedural regime that governed the litigation they are studying.
Second, Regulæ Generales were subject to revision without systematic codification. A rule in force in 1750 may have been superseded by 1780, with no single authoritative record of the change. Dating the applicable rule for a given proceeding requires attention to which term of court the rule was issued and whether subsequent rules modified it.
Third, the transition from Regulæ Generales to modern court rules — ultimately systematized in England through the Judicature Acts of 1873–1875 and the Rules of the Supreme Court, and in American jurisdictions through enabling acts and eventually the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938) — means the term itself effectively disappears from living practice. Its presence in a source is therefore a reliable signal that the material is pre-modern.
Fourth, American colonial and early republic courts sometimes adopted analogous general rules under this label or its English-language equivalent, drawing directly on English common law court practice. Researchers in early American court records should be alert to this inheritance.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed., Supplemental) defines the term concisely as "General rules, which the courts promulgate from time to time for the regulation of their practice." This definition accurately captures the institutional character of the term but provides no guidance on the historical courts that issued them, the mechanism of promulgation, or how they were distinguished from special rules.
The historical dictionaries collectively treat this as a self-explanatory Latin phrase requiring only translation. None of the shelf sources survey the body of actual Regulæ Generales issued by the English common law courts, nor do they address how these rules related to the broader architecture of court authority. For substantive content, researchers must go beyond the dictionaries to practice manuals of the period — works such as Tidd's Practice of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas (multiple editions, early nineteenth century) — which catalogued the current general rules as part of their practical guidance to practitioners.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term belongs principally to the English common law tradition and appears in American legal sources mainly in early practice materials that drew on English precedent. Modern American and English court rules have entirely displaced the terminology, though the underlying concept — courts issuing standing procedural rules on their own authority — is universal and continues under different names.
---