Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Judgments V Reasons In Federal Court Refugee Claim Judicial Reviews: A Bad Precedent, Sean Rehaag, Pierre-André Thériault
Judgments V Reasons In Federal Court Refugee Claim Judicial Reviews: A Bad Precedent, Sean Rehaag, Pierre-André Thériault
Dalhousie Law Journal
This article offers an empirical examination of policies on the publication of refugee law decisions in Canada’s Federal Court. In 2015, the Court issued a notice describing the Court’s general practice of publishing written reasons in cases that the deciding judge considers as having precedential value and of issuing unpublished judgments in cases that the deciding judge does not view as precedential. In 2018, the Court reversed course and issued a new notice. This time, the Court indicated that all final decisions on the merits will be published.
Drawing on data obtained via automated data scraping processes from thousands of …
Stare Decisis And Intersystemic Adjudication, Nina Varsava
Stare Decisis And Intersystemic Adjudication, Nina Varsava
Notre Dame Law Review
Interpreting and following precedent is a complicated business. Various reasonable but conflicting methods of ascertaining the legal effect of precedent exist. Differences between practices of precedent or doctrines of stare decisis are particularly salient between legal systems or jurisdictions. For example, a state’s judges might embrace different stare decisis norms than federal judges. This situation presents a major quandary for intersystemic jurisprudence that has been largely overlooked in the scholarly literature.
Are law-applying judges in the intersystemic context bound by the law-supplying jurisdiction’s methods of interpreting precedent? For example, when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adjudicates a question of …