Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts

Neal E. Devins

Articles 1 - 20 of 20

Full-Text Articles in Law

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal 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 ...


Essay: Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

Essay: Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal 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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Aug 2012

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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal 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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal 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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal 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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Aug 2012

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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Aug 2012

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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Aug 2012

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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal 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 ...


Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision-Making, Neal E. Devins, David Klein Aug 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Mar 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Mar 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Mar 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Mar 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Feb 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Feb 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Feb 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Feb 2012

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 ...


The Power To Bind: Dicta In Theory And Practice, Neal E. Devins, David E. Klein Feb 2012

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 ...