Law Commons^™

To Say What The Law Is: Rules, Results, And The Dangers Of Inferential Stare Decisis, Adam N. Steinman

Faculty Scholarship

Judicial decisions do more than resolve disputes. They are also crucial sources of prospective law, because stare decisis obligates future courts to follow those decisions. Yet there remains tremendous uncertainty about how we identify a judicial decision’s lawmaking content. Does stare decisis require future courts to follow the rules stated in a precedent-setting opinion? Or must future courts merely reconcile their decisions with the ultimate result of the precedent-setting case? Although it is widely assumed that a rule-based approach puts greater constraints on future courts, two recent Supreme Court decisions—Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and Ashcroft v. Iqbal—turn this conventional …

Administrative Change, Randy J. Kozel, Jeffrey Pojanowski

Jeffrey A. Pojanowski

Determining the standard of review for administrative actions has commanded judicial and scholarly interest like few other topics. Notwithstanding the extensive debates, far less consideration has been given to the unique features of agencies’ deviations from their own precedents. In this article we examine this puzzle of administrative change. By change, we mean a reversal of the agency’s former views about the best way to implement and interpret its regulatory mandate. We trace the lineage of administrative change at the Supreme Court and analyze features that distinguish agency reversals from other administrative actions. In particular, we contend that because administrative …

Administrative Change, Randy J. Kozel, Jeffrey Pojanowski

Randy J Kozel

Determining the standard of review for administrative actions has commanded judicial and scholarly interest like few other topics. Notwithstanding the extensive debates, far less consideration has been given to the unique features of agencies’ deviations from their own precedents. In this article we examine this puzzle of administrative change. By change, we mean a reversal of the agency’s former views about the best way to implement and interpret its regulatory mandate. We trace the lineage of administrative change at the Supreme Court and analyze features that distinguish agency reversals from other administrative actions. In particular, we contend that because administrative …

Holdings, Dicta, And The Paradigms Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel

Randy J Kozel

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In doing so, it raised significant questions about the power of states to limit the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples. That issue was not presented in Windsor itself, but Windsor’s reasoning and rhetoric have already begun to play a pivotal role in ensuing challenges to state laws. Determining the future effects of Windsor, or of any other Supreme Court decision, requires defining the scope of judicial precedent. One account of precedent is restrictive: Only a court’s holdings must …

Partial Final Judgment And Decree Of The Water Rights Of The Navajo Nation, 11th Judicial District Court, San Juan County, New Mexico

Native American Water Rights Settlement Project

Partial Final Decree of the Water Rights of the Navajo Nation: Parties: Navajo Nation, NM, New Mexico, USA, United States.

Contents:

1. Jurisdiction, p.2; 2. Reserved Rights to the Use of Water p.2; 3. Reserved Rights for Specified Surface Water Diversions p.2, including a) Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, p.3, b) Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, p.3; c) Animas-La Plata Project, p.4; d) Municipal and Domestic Uses, p.4; e) Hogback-Cudei Irrigation Project, p.4; f) Fruitland-Cambridge Irrigation Project p.5; 4. Supplemental Carriage Water, p.6; 5. Conditions, p.7; 6. Diversions for Navajo-Gallup Project Uses in Arizona, p.17; 7. Groundwater Rights, p.18; 8. Hydrographic Survey …

Lawyers And Precedent, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

Despite common references to the “invisible college of international lawyers,” and the doctrinal role granted to “the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations,” the role of lawyers, as lawyers, in the creation, development, and maintenance of the international legal order remains oddly underexplored. This short essay, prepared as part of a symposium on “The Role of Non-State Actors in International Law,” explores the role of lawyers as independent actors within international law. It argues that focusing on lawyers can help provide insights into how international law develops — specifically here, how and why a practice of precedent seems …

The Evolution Of The Common Law And Efficiency, Nuno Garoupa, Carlos I. Gómez Ligüerre

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Apportioning Liability In Maryland Tort Cases: Time To End Contributory Negligence And Joint And Several Liability, Donald G. Gifford, Christopher J. Robinette

Donald G Gifford

The Article presents a comprehensive proposal for assigning liability in tort cases according to the parties’ respective degrees of fault. The authors criticize the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s recent decision in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia declining to abrogate contributory negligence, particularly the court’s notion that it should not act because of the legislature’s repeated failure to do so. The Article provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of comparative fault, including its effect on administrative costs, claims frequency, claims severity, insurance premiums, and economic performance. The authors propose the legislative enactment of comparative fault and …

Activism, Attitudes, And The Citation Of Precedent In Supreme Court Opinions, Robert R. Robinson

Robert R Robinson

Adherence to precedent provides a legitimizing function for judges. Recent scholarship supports this contention, demonstrating that Supreme Court justices are more likely to cite well-grounded precedent when their opinions face greater scrutiny. In this paper, I continue this line of research by examining whether citation practice varies along individual-level characteristics such as judicial ideology, a propensity for activism, judicial background, and judicial roles. I find that most individual-level factors have little or no impact on how justices ground their opinions in prior precedent, with the exception of judicial activism, which has a moderate negative impact on the centrality of the …

The Conflict Between Stare Decisis And Ov Erruling In Constitutional Adjudication, Steven J. Burton

steven J. burton

This article argues that the Constitution constrains the Supreme Court's power to overrule its constitutional precedents. It bases this argument on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the conjunction of Marbury v. Madison, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Cohens v. Virginia, and the "case or controversy" limit on federal court jurisdiction.

Overruling Precedent: "A Derelict In The Stream Of The Law", Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Will the Supreme Court overrule Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. N.L.R.B., 535 U.S. 137 (2002), its precedent that treats unlawful alien workers as criminals and denies them backpay for a violation of a labor law? More generally, what are the statistical indicators of a precedent that the Supreme Court overrules— and how well does Hoffman Plastic fit that profile? To answer these research questions, I analyze two unique databases— 128 federal and state rulings from 2002-2012 that involved Hoffman Plastic’s remedy issue, and a sample of 154 Supreme Court pairings of an overruled precedent, and the decision that explicitly …

General Semantics, Stare Decisis And Change Through Considerations Of A New Ethics, Irene S. Ross

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

International Law’S Erie Moment, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

Who fills international law’s gaps? Whether over the meaning of bilateral investment treaties, the standards regarding detainee transfer, or the rules of non-international armed conflict, courts and states are increasingly in conflict over the authority to say what the law is. With international law’s increased judicialization, two competing visions of international law have emerged: One, a gap-filled international law, in which law is developed slowly through custom, argument, and negotiation, and a second, gap-less, in which disputes are resolved through a form of common law adjudication.

Drawing on growing literature on the law outside of courts, particularly out-of-court settlements, the …

At&T V. Concepcion: The Problem Of A False Majority, Lisa Tripp, Evan R. Hanson

Lisa Tripp

The Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion is the first case where the Supreme Court explores the interplay between state law unconscionability doctrine and the vast preemptive power of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although it is considered by many to be a landmark decision which has the potential for greatly expanding the already impressive preemptive power of the FAA, something is amiss with Concepcion.

AT&T v. Concepcion is ostensibly a 5-4 majority decision with a concurring opinion. However, the differences in the majority and concurring opinions are so profound that it appears that Justice Thomas actually …

Is There A Stare Decisis Doctrine In The Court Of Arbitration For Sport? An Analysis Of Published Awards For Anti-Doping Disputes In Track And Field, Annie Bersagel

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

The article presents information on the doctrine of the stare decisis under the court of arbitration for sport with respect to the awards and arbitration for the disputes on anti-doping in the sport of track and field. The jurisdiction of the commercial and the disciplinary disputes of the Olympic Games are exercised by the court of arbitration for sport. Information on the role of the doctrine of the civil law is also presented.

Introduction, Ronald F. Phillips

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Precedent: What It Is And What It Isn't; When Do We Kiss It And When Do We Kill It?, Ruggero J. Aldisert

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dialectic Of Stare Decisis Doctrine, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

In the United States Supreme Court, the concept of stare decisis operates as both metadoctrine and doctrine. On the one hand, stare decisis functions as a generally applicable presumption in favor of adherence to precedent. This presumption is metadoctrinal because it provides a generic argument against overruling that applies independently of the substantive context of any given case. On the other hand, when the Court considers overruling a particularly controversial precedent, it usually weighs the constraining force of stare decisis by invoking factors and tests announced in its own prior caselaw. In other words, the Court has precedent about when …

Activism, Attitudes, And The Citation Of Precedent In Supreme Court Opinions, Robert R. Robinson

Robert R Robinson

Adherence to precedent provides a legitimizing function for judges. Recent scholarship supports this contention, demonstrating that Supreme Court justices are more likely to cite well-grounded precedent when their opinions face greater scrutiny. In this paper, I continue this line of research by examining whether citation practice varies along individual-level characteristics such as judicial ideology, a propensity for activism, judicial background, and judicial roles. I find that most individual-level factors have little or no impact on how justices ground their opinions in prior precedent, with the exception of judicial activism, which has a moderate negative impact on the centrality of the …

The Litigation Privilege In Texas., Sam Johnson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Certain Texas cases have arisen where one party in litigation sues the attorney representing an opposing party. In response to such cases, Texas courts promulgated a judicial doctrine generally referred to as the litigation privilege or qualified immunity in order to protect litigants’ right to zealous representation from their attorney. The general rule is that one party to a lawsuit cannot sue the other party’s attorney. However, exceptions to this doctrine exist. This article explores the contours of the litigation privilege in Texas by analyzing the primary Texas cases where one party’s claim against the opposing party’s attorney was dismissed …

Precedent And Jurisprudential Disagreement, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

This Article, a contribution to a symposium on constitutional foundations, maintains that an unappreciated function of stare decisis is that of referee between competing visions of the Constitution. Stare decisis is styled as a doctrine of error-correction, but in controversial cases, "error" is often a stand-in for disagreement about first principles. In these cases, stare decisis functions less to guide the business of correcting mistakes — a conception that oversimplifies the reality of pluralism on the Court — than to mediate intense disputes about the Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution. Identifying this function of stare decisis offers a different …

Precedent And Reliance, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

Among the most prevalent justifications for deference to judicial precedent is the protection of reliance interests. The theory is that when judicial pronouncements have engendered significant reliance, there should be a meaningful presumption against adjudicative change. Yet there remains a fundamental question as to why reliance on precedent warrants judicial protection in the first place.

This Article explores the dynamics and implications of precedential reliance. It contends that the case for protecting reliance on precedent is uncertain. There are several reasons why reliance might potentially be worth protecting, but all are subject to serious limitations or challenges. To bolster the …

Are Judges The Makers Or Discoverers Of The Law?: Theories Of Adjudication And Stare Decisis Withspecial Reference To Case Law In Pakistan, Muhammad Munir Dr

Dr. Muhammad Munir

The debate about whether judges make or create the law is at the centre of any discussion about stare decisis. Modern authors have discussed the views of judges and jurists in the past. This work focuses on some of the notable judges and jurists of the twentieth century, such as Lord Denning, Lord Reid, Lord Devlin, Bodenheimer, Hart, Dworkin, from the Anglo–American legal systems. The views of the latter three jurists are very complicated and need particular attention. It is also pertinent to note that no one has explored the views of leading judges and jurists in Pakistan to know …