This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should this be a full article on its own, or should it be only the opeing paragraph (a quasi-dictionary defintion) and a pointer --

For full discussion, see Reception Statutes in common law

The concept of a "reception statute" makes no sense without an understanding of what common law is.

Everything here was duplicated from the common law article, word for word. By bias as a programmer and lawyer that often drafts briefs in teams is that when there are two parallel texts like this, they will diverge, and each will be written with less care than otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundlessly (talk • contribs) 15:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe it warrants its own page. I can try to rework it. Swampyank (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reception statutes are an important part of, but not the whole story of, Received Law. Common Law is such a HUGE topic that it could swallow up almost other issue. However it would not be helpful to the person seeking information on received law to have this topic submerged in the larger pool.

It is capable of independent discussion and is viable on its own terms. I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.63.40.169 (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is the reference for "each of the other Australian colonies received the common law of New South Wales upon its founding"? Western Australia was never part of New South Wales. Grassynoel (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that this page should be moved to "Reception of English law", for three reasons. First, the current name does not reflect the actual content of the article. The article deals generally with the reception of English law, not just with reception statutes. Second, as the quote from Blackstone makes clear, English law could be recieved automatically for "uninhabited" colonies, without the need for any statute. Third, the article also points out that in some jurisdictions (eg some Canadian colonies and some Australian colonies), there has never been a reception statute. If the article title remains as is, then those examples should be deleted, which would produce an unbalanced article. Better to keep the current content and change the article title to include them Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply