Precedent and Legal Authority: A Critical History
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Chapter 2: Explaining the Interpretation of Precedent
Recall from chapter 1 that the Court’s treatment of precedent takes two broad forms, positive interpretation and negative interpretation. First, the Court can interpret a precedent positively by relying on it as legal authority and thus broaden its reach or at least reiterate its continuing legal relevance. When doing so, for example, the Court can indicate that a precedent is controlling or de...
متن کاملInformative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication
We develop an informational model of judicial decision-making in which deference to precedent is useful to policy-oriented appellate judges because it improves the accuracy with which they can communicate legal rules to trial judges. Our simple model yields new implications and hypotheses regarding conditions under which judges will maintain or break with precedent, the constraining effect that...
متن کاملThe authority of Supreme Court precedent
We construct the complete network of 30,288 majority opinions written by the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they cite from 1754 to 2002 in he United States Reports. Data from this network demonstrates quantitatively the evolution of the norm of stare decisis in the 19th Century and significant deviation from this norm by the activist Warren Court. We further describe a method for creating aut...
متن کاملJudicial Security in pre trial stage in iran criminal law and Judicial precedent
Judicial Security is the concept based on which the reputation, life, property and all material and intellectual rights of the Human Being are protected by law and keep guarded by the Judiciary Power. Creating such an environment means observing some criteria by which the legal protection goal, namely reaching legal justice, is realized. Securing justice protection for all and the equal protect...
متن کاملHow do judges learn from precedent?
Federal appellate judges cite cases by sister circuits. Why is that? Common wisdom holds that judges look to out-of-circuit cases for credible legal arguments -as persuasive precedent. But hard-core adherents of the attitudinal model (Segal and Spaeth 2002) – and certain cynical realists and critical legal studies scholars – might argue that judges decide in accordance with their policy or poli...
متن کامل