Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Law
Essay: Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Essay: Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein
Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4,000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein
Neal E. Devins
The distinction between dicta and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dicta. Specifically, federal court of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 5, 000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 3,000 cases. In this essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary …