2557:
Court makes similar noises today, it is roundly criticized. At least within the academy, conventional wisdom now maintains that a purported demonstration of error is not enough to justify overruling a past decision. ... he conventional wisdom is wrong to suggest that any coherent doctrine of stare decisis must include a presumption against overruling precedent that the current court deems demonstrably erroneous. The doctrine of stare decisis would indeed be no doctrine at all if courts were free to overrule a past decision simply because they would have reached a different decision as an original matter. But when a court says that a past decision is demonstrably erroneous, it is saying not only that it would have reached a different decision as an original matter, but also that the prior court went beyond the range of indeterminacy created by the relevant source of law. ... Americans from the
Founding on believed that court decisions could help "liquidate" or settle the meaning of ambiguous provisions of written law. Later courts generally were supposed to abide by such "liquidations". ... To the extent that the underlying legal provision was determinate, however, courts were not thought to be similarly bound by precedent that misinterpreted it. ... Of the Court's current members, Justices Scalia and Thomas seem to have the most faith in the determinacy of the legal texts that come before the Court. It should come as no surprise that they also seem the most willing to overrule the Court's past decisions. ... Prominent journalists and other commentators suggest that there is some contradiction between these Justices' mantra of "judicial restraint" and any systematic re-examination of precedent. But if one believes in the determinacy of the underlying legal texts, one need not define "judicial restraint" solely in terms of fidelity to precedent; one can also speak of fidelity to the texts themselves.
1709:
question presented is one of applying, as distinguished from what may accurately be called interpreting, the
Constitution. In the cases which now come before us there is seldom any dispute as to the interpretation of any provision. The controversy is usually over the application to existing conditions of some well-recognized constitutional limitation. This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause when the question is whether a statute is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; of cases under the equal protection clause when the question is whether there is any reasonable basis for the classification made by a statute; and of cases under the commerce clause when the question is whether an admitted burden laid by a statute upon interstate commerce is so substantial as to be deemed direct. ...
4850:
682:
appeals court. All appellate courts fall under a highest court (sometimes but not always called a "supreme court"). By definition, decisions of lower courts are not binding on courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings.
1223:("Res judicata" is the traditional name going back centuries; the name shifted to "claim preclusion" in the United States over the late 20th century). Claim preclusion applies regardless of the plaintiff wins or loses the earlier case, even if the later case raises a different legal theory, even the second claim is unknown at the time of the first case. Exceptions are extremely limited, for example if the two claims for relief must necessarily be brought in different courts (for example, one claim might be exclusively federal, and the other exclusively state).
4826:
1704:
Federal
Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function. ... In cases involving the Federal Constitution the position of this Court is unlike that of the highest court of England, where the policy of
771:
Pennsylvania, and the Virgin
Islands) is bound by rulings of the Third Circuit Court, but not by rulings in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington), since the Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction defined by geography. The Circuit Courts of Appeals can interpret the law how they want, so long as there is no binding Supreme Court precedent. One of the common reasons the Supreme Court grants
4862:
200:, in common-law jurisdictions, is the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals or other rulings that can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law, which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency. Essential to the development of case law is the publication and indexing of decisions for use by lawyers, courts, and the general public, in the form of
4766:
8332:
4790:
1985:, 474 U.S. 254, at 265-66 (1986): "he important doctrine of stare decisis the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion. That doctrine permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law, rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact."
8346:
7112:
6596:
6585:
4838:
47:
1089:
Oftentimes, this effect depends on the âformalityâ of the opinion. Opinions can be either formal, meaning they are published, or informal, meaning that they are sent directly to the opinion requestor. Although formal opinions can act as a sort of binding precedent when they answer legal questions that a court has not, either form of opinion may act as a source of law if they have a direct effect on the administration of government.
4754:
4814:
2532:
continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. A judge that wants to reconsider a case and certainly one who wants to overrule a case has the burden of demonstrating that not only is the case incorrect, but that it would be appropriate, in view of stare decisis, to make that additional step of overruling that case.
1350:
4802:
7124:
767:
interpretation of the First
Amendment as it applies to suits for slander. If a lower court judge disagrees with a higher court precedent on what the First Amendment should mean, the lower court judge must rule according to the binding precedent. Until the higher court changes the ruling (or the law itself is changed), the binding precedent is authoritative on the meaning of the law.
420:
difference between the facts of the cases. If that decision goes to appeal, the appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the precedent and the case under appeal, perhaps overruling the previous case law by setting a new precedent of higher authority. This may happen several times as the case works its way through successive appeals.
1238:
determination in later cases, and need not reprove the issue of negligence. For another example, if a patent is shown to be invalid in a case against one accused infringer, that same patent is invalid against all other accused infringersâinvalidity need not be reproven. Again, limits and exceptions on this principle exist. The principle is called
2025:, 321 U.S. 649, at 665 (1944): "hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedents. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment and not upon legislative action this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions."
622:. If an issue of state law arises during a case in federal court, and there is no decision on point from the highest court of the state, the federal court must either attempt to predict how the state courts would resolve the issue by looking at decisions from state appellate courts, or, if allowed by the constitution of the relevant state,
2648:, argue that obeying precedent makes decisions "predictable". For example, a business person can be reasonably assured of predicting a decision where the facts of his or her case are sufficiently similar to a case decided previously. This parallels the arguments against retroactive (ex post facto) laws banned by the U.S. Constitution .
2350:(1950), a man was found guilty of being drunk in charge of a carriage, although in fact he only had a bicycle. The final rule; although will no longer be used after the UK fully transitions out of the European Union. Known as the Purposive approach- this considers the intention of the European Court of Justice when the act was passed.
864:" is a term used for important precedent that is resistant or immune from being overturned, without regard to whether correctly decided in the first place. It may be viewed as one extreme in a range of precedential power, or alternatively, to express a belief, or a critique of that belief, that some decisions should not be overturned.
1931:, concurring): " greatest purpose is to serve a constitutional idealâthe rule of law. It follows that in the unusual circumstance when fidelity to any particular precedent does more damage to this constitutional ideal than to advance it, we must be more willing to depart from that precedent." (citations omitted)
1963:): "We generally adhere to our prior decisions, even if we questions their soundness, because doing so 'promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process'."
2556:
American courts of last resort recognize a rebuttable presumption against overruling their own past decisions. In earlier eras, people often suggested that this presumption did not apply if the past decision, in the view of the court's current members, was demonstrably erroneous. But when the
Supreme
419:
If the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and wishes to evade it and help the law evolve, the court may either hold that the precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that the precedent should be "distinguished" by some material
1114:
In the United States, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the concept of a U.S. court considering foreign law or precedent has been considered controversial by some parties. The
Supreme Court splits on this issue. This critique is recent, as in the early history of the United States, citation
805:
jurisdictions. This is a distinctive feature of the
English legal system. In other countries, particularly in mainland Europe, civil law means that judges take case law into account in a similar way, but are not obliged to do so and are required to consider the precedent in terms of principle. Their
750:
Given a determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in
514:
Quite apart from the rules of precedent, the weight actually given to any reported opinion may depend on the reputation of both the court and the judges with respect to the specific issue. For example, in the United States, the Second
Circuit (New York and surrounding states) is especially respected
2925:
itself may be unconstitutional if it requires the Court to adhere to an erroneous reading of the
Constitution. "If the Constitution says X and a prior judicial decision says Y, a court has not merely the power, but the obligation, to prefer the Constitution." In the same vein, Professors Ahkil Amar
2471:
is an approach to interpretation of a legal text in which controlling weight is given to the intent of the original authors (at least the intent as inferred by a modern judge). In contrast, a non-originalist looks at other cues to meaning, including the current meaning of the words, the pattern and
2409:
Although inferior courts are bound in theory by superior court precedent, in practice a judge may believe that justice requires an outcome at some variance with precedent, and may distinguish the facts of the individual case on reasoning that does not appear in the binding precedent. On appeal, the
2276:
One of the most important roles of precedent is to resolve ambiguities in other legal texts, such as constitutions, statutes, and regulations. The process involves, first and foremost, consultation of the plain language of the text, as enlightened by the legislative history of enactment, subsequent
1728:
A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a
1464:
insofar as it dictates that a court's decision must condone a cohesive and predictable result. In theory, lower courts are generally not bound by the precedents of higher courts. In practice, the need for predictability means that lower courts generally defer to the precedent of higher courts. As a
1290:
Courts try to formulate the common law as a "seamless web" so that principles in one area of the law apply to other areas. However, this principle does not apply uniformly. Thus, a word may have different definitions in different areas of the law, or different rules may apply so that a question has
1167:
Nonpublication of opinions, or unpublished opinions, are those decisions of courts that are not available for citation as precedent because the judges making the opinion deem the cases as having less precedential value. Selective publication is the legal process which a judge or justices of a court
770:
Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts within their region. Thus, a federal district court that falls within the geographic boundaries of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the mid-level appeals court that hears appeals from district court decisions from Delaware, New Jersey,
629:
On the other hand, when a state court rules on an issue of federal law, the state court is bound only by rulings of the Supreme Court, but not by decisions of federal district or circuit courts of appeals. However some states have adopted a practice of considering themselves bound by rulings of the
2930:
tends to improperly elevate judicial doctrine over the Constitution itself." It does so, they argue, "by requiring excessive deference to past decisions that themselves may have been misinterpretations of the law of the land. For Lawson, Akhil Amar, and Vikram Amar, dismissing erroneous horizontal
2320:
is used when use of the literal rule would obviously create an absurd result. There are two ways in which the golden rule can be applied: a narrow method, and a broad method. Under the narrow method, when there are apparently two contradictory meanings to the wording of a legislative provision, or
1708:
was formulated and is strictly applied to all classes of cases. Parliament is free to correct any judicial error; and the remedy may be promptly invoked. The reasons why this Court should refuse to follow an earlier constitutional decision which it deems erroneous are particularly strong where the
1410:
traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often an exegesis of the wider legal principles. These are called
1212:
Once a case is decided, the same plaintiff cannot sue the same defendant again on any claim arising out of the same facts. The law requires plaintiffs to put all issues on the table in a single case, not split the case. For example, in a case of an auto accident, the plaintiff cannot sue first for
1152:
to apply state substantive law, but in a manner consistent with how the court believes the state's highest court would rule in that case. Since such decisions are not binding on state courts, but are often very well-reasoned and useful, state courts cite federal interpretations of state law fairly
871:
and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent" in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations. Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent" later became associated with different issue:
510:
of the majority becomes binding precedent. For example, if a 12-member court splits 5â2â3â2 in four different opinions on several different issues, whatever reasoning commands seven votes on each specific issue becomes precedent, and the seven-judge majorities may differ issue-to-issue. All may be
496:
Any court may seek to distinguish its present case from that of a binding precedent, to reach a different conclusion. The validity of such a distinction may or may not be accepted on appeal. An appellate court may also propound an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and
1260:
Within a single case, once there has been a first appeal, both the lower court and the appellate court itself will not further review the same issue, and will not re-review an issue that could have been appealed in the first appeal. Exceptions are limited to three "exceptional circumstances": (1)
1123:
jurisdictions within the same country as persuasive precedent. Particularly in the United States, the adoption of a legal doctrine by a large number of other state judiciaries is regarded as highly persuasive evidence that such doctrine is preferred. A good example is the adoption in Tennessee of
2531:
I think overruling a case or reconsidering a case is a very serious matter. Certainly, you would have to be of the view that a case is incorrectly decided, but I think even that is not adequate. There are some cases that you may not agree with that should not be overruled. Stare decisis provides
2396:
However, most legal texts have some lingering ambiguityâinevitably, situations arise in which the words chosen by the legislature do not address the precise facts in issue, or there is some tension among two or more statutes. In such cases, a court must analyze the various available sources, and
2244:
was so recent. The Practice Statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility. If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has distorted the law, the sooner it is corrected the better." Still, the House of Lords has remained reluctant to overrule itself in some
1774:
Precedent viewed against passing time can serve to establish trends, thus indicating the next logical step in evolving interpretations of the law. For instance, if immigration has become more and more restricted under the law, then the next legal decision on that subject may serve to restrict it
1084:
In the United States, every state attorney general is permitted to issue advisory opinions on questions of law. It is a process that has its origins in the English common law. Most state attorney opinions address issues of government finance or the authority of political bodies within the state.
1703:
is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation. But in cases involving the
1629:
traditions play a much smaller role in developing case law than professors in civil law traditions. Because court decisions in civil law traditions are brief and not amenable to establishing precedent, much of the exposition of the law in civil law traditions is done by academics rather than by
1102:
are more likely to be given persuasive weight (for example Commonwealth states such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand). Persuasive weight might be given to other common law courts, such as from the United States, most often where the American courts have been particularly innovative, e.g. in
681:
must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In state and federal courts in the United States of America, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional
4250:
2223:
However, the Practice Statement was seldom applied by the House of Lords, usually only as a last resort. Up to 2005, the House of Lords rejected its past decisions no more than 20 times. They were reluctant to use it because they feared to introduce uncertainty into the law. In particular, the
1088:
By and large, courts treat state attorney general opinions as persuasive authority. The opinions lack the force of law that statutes and judicial opinions have. But, they still have the potential to act as a sort of pseudoâlaw if they constrain the activities of public officials or the public.
1056:
A judge in a subsequent case, particularly in a different jurisdiction, could find the dissenting judge's reasoning persuasive. In the jurisdiction of the original decision, however, a judge should only overturn the holding of a court lower or equivalent in the hierarchy. A district court, for
3639:
Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Harrell, 713 S.E.2d 604, 609 (S.C. 2011) (âAttorney General opinions, while persuasive, are not binding upon this Court.â); U.S. v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629, 654 (4th Cir. 2012) (âIn the absence of any South Carolina law to the contrary, we find persuasive the South
2908:
Some instances of disregarding precedent are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare showing of unity in a Supreme Court opinion discussing judicial activism, Justice Stevens wrote that a circuit court "engaged in an indefensible brand of judicial activism" when it
2295:, the judge should do what the actual legislation states rather than trying to do what the judge thinks that it means. The judge should use the plain everyday ordinary meaning of the words, even if this produces an unjust or undesirable outcome. A good example of problems with this method is
1061:
dissent as a basis to depart from the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, lower courts occasionally cite dissents, either for a limiting principle on the majority, or for propositions that are not stated in the majority opinion and not inconsistent with that majority, or to explain a
936:
but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts,
1899:(1986) the Supreme Court stated succinctly that stare decisis "contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact" by maintaining the notion "that bedrock principles are founded in the law, rather than in the proclivities of individuals."
1122:
Within the federal legal systems of several common-law countries, and most especially the United States, it is relatively common for the distinct lower-level judicial systems (e.g. state courts in the United States and Australia, provincial courts in Canada) to regard the decisions of other
1237:
Once a case is finally decided, any issues decided in the previous case may be binding against the party who lost the issue in later cases, even in cases involving other parties. For example, if a first case decides that a party was negligent, then other plaintiffs may rely on that earlier
2093:
hen convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to reexamine the basis of its
884:), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by a kind of super-stare decisis". The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually immune from being overturned, regardless of whether they were decided correctly in the first place, is the idea to which the term "super-
766:
The U.S. Supreme Court has final authority on questions about the meaning of federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. For example, when the Supreme Court says that the First Amendment applies in a specific way to suits for slander, then every court is bound by that precedent in its
1977:, 501 U.S. 808, at 827 (1991): "Stare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process."
751:
the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was necessary to the disposition of the precedent case; (3) the significant facts of the precedent case are also presented in the pending case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant.
1075:
Courts may consider the writings of eminent legal scholars in treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews. The extent to which judges find these types of writings persuasive will vary widely with elements such as the reputation of the author and the relevance of the argument.
1600:
tradition; however, their private law is firmly rooted in the civil law tradition. Because of their position between the two main systems of law, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as "mixed" systems of law. Louisiana courts, for instance, operate under both
2410:
appellate court may either adopt the new reasoning, or reverse on the basis of precedent. On the other hand, if the losing party does not appeal (typically because of the cost of the appeal), the lower court decision may remain in effect, at least as to the individual parties.
1261:
when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial, (2) when the law changes after the first appeal, for example by a decision of a higher court, or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice. This principle is called "
1119:. Citation to English cases was common through the 19th and well into the 20th centuries. Even in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it is relatively uncontroversial for American state courts to rely on English decisions for matters of pure common (i.e. judge-made) law.
806:
fellow judges' decisions may be persuasive but are not binding. Under the English legal system, judges are not necessarily entitled to make their own decisions about the development or interpretations of the law. They may be bound by a decision reached in a previous case.
571:, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court.
1492:
as to guide future courts. The ratio is used to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent for future cases. By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently
2261:
A precedent does not bind a court if it finds there was a lack of care in the original "Per Incuriam". For example, if a statutory provision or precedent had not been brought to the previous court's attention before its decision, the precedent would not be binding.
1097:
The courts of England and Wales are free to consider decisions of other jurisdictions, and give them whatever persuasive weight the English court sees fit, even though these other decisions are not binding precedent. Jurisdictions that are closer to modern English
2921:," the doctrine requiring a court "to follow its own prior decisions in similar cases," is a more complicated and debatable matter....cademics argue that it is sometimes proper to disregard horizontal precedent. Professor Gary Lawson, for example, has argued that
2637:, the legislature is empowered to do so. Critics sometimes accuse particular judges of applying the doctrine selectively, invoking it to support precedent that the judge supported anyway, but ignoring it in order to change precedent with which the judge disagreed
762:
Under the U.S. legal system, courts are set up in a hierarchy. At the top of the federal or national system is the Supreme Court, and underneath are lower federal courts. The state court systems have hierarchical structures similar to that of the federal system.
1917:
Several Supreme Court decisions were overruled by subsequent decisions since 1798. In doing so the Supreme Court has time and time again made several statements regarding stare decisis. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these statements:
2609:
include its rigidity, the complexity of learning law, the fact that differences between certain cases may be very small and thereby appear illogical and arbitrary, and the slow growth or incremental changes to the law that are in need of major overhaul.
2487:
gives most weight to the newest understanding of a legal text, while originalism gives most weight to the oldest. While they do not necessarily reach different results in every case, the two approaches are in direct tension. Originalists such as Justice
2438:
court systems. On an issue of federal law, a state court is not bound by an interpretation of federal law at the district or circuit level, but is bound by an interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. On an interpretation of state law, whether
2131:(1991). The strong conception requires a "special justification" to overrule challenged precedent beyond the fact the precedent was "wrongly decided", while the weak conception holds that a precedent can be overruled if it suffers from "bad reasoning".
1699:, though one tending to consistency and uniformity of decision, is not inflexible. Whether it shall be followed or departed from is a question entirely within the discretion of the court, which is again called upon to consider a question once decided."
1435:â which holds that legislation is the only valid source of law because it has been voted on democratically; thus, it is not the judiciary's role to create law, but rather to interpret and apply statute, and therefore their decisions must reflect that.
2224:
Practice Statement stated that the Lords would be especially reluctant to overrule themselves in criminal cases because of the importance of certainty of that law. The first case involving criminal law to be overruled with the Practice Statement was
2009:, concurring): "What would enshrine power as the governing principle of this Court is the notion that an important constitutional decision with plainly inadequate rational support must be left in place for the sole reason that it once attracted a ."
1887:
aims to bolster the legitimacy of the judicial process and foster the rule of law. It does so by strengthening stability, certainty, predictability, consistency and uniformity in the application of the law to cases and litigants. By adhering to
1874:
which are called "precedents". These "ules and principles established in prior cases inform the Court's future decisions." The adherence to rules and principles created in past cases as a foundation for future decisions by the courts is called
411:
A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if the lower court feels that the precedent is wrong. Even if an intermediate judge issues a ruling inconsistent with existing or subsequent precedent, if the case is not vacated on
1182:
that is settled out of court generates no written decision, thus has no precedential effect. As one practical effect, the U.S. Department of Justice settles many cases against the federal government simply to avoid creating adverse precedent.
1905:
reduces the number and scope of legal questions that the court must resolve in litigation. It is therefore a time saver for judges and litigants. Once a court has settled a particular question of law it has established a precedent. Thanks to
3138:
2587:
In a 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed overreliance by American lawyers on precedent â especially persuasive authority of marginal relevance â rather than the merits of the case at hand, as a major factor behind the escalation of
1281:
If the two courts are in separate, parallel jurisdictions, there is no conflict, and two lines of precedent may persist. Courts in one jurisdiction are influenced by decisions in others, and notably better rules may be adopted over time.
1044:
A case decided by a multijudge panel could result in a split decision. While only the majority opinion is considered precedential, an outvoted judge can still publish a dissenting opinion. Common patterns for dissenting opinions include:
3602:
29 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 111, 112, (2019) (âAt English common law, the Attorney General had the power to issue opinions to Parliament, and as with many aspects of English common law, this power was imported into the nascent American legal
3649:
Robert K. Mills & Jon S. Schultz, South Carolina Legal Research Handbook 123 (1976) (âAttorney general opinions lack the same force of law as a statute or a judicial opinion since they usually do not bind entities in other parts of
1657:; often, they are cited when judges are attempting to implement reasoning that other courts have not yet adopted, or when the judge believes the academic's restatement of the law is more compelling than can be found in precedent. Thus
1335:
and analogies from prior rulings by other courts (which may be higher, peers, or lower courts in the hierarchy, or from other jurisdictions), commentaries and articles by legal scholars, and the court's own logic and sense of justice.
2109:
The Court has stated that where a court gives multiple reasons for a given result, each alternative reason that is "explicitly" labeled by the court as an "independent" ground for the decision is not treated as "simply a dictum".
230:, if the principles underpinning the previous decision are found specific to, or premised upon, certain factual scenarios, and not applied to the subsequent case because of the absence or material difference in the latter's facts;
1811:, the royal courts constituted only one among many fora in which in the English could settle their disputes. The royal courts operated alongside and in competition with ecclesiastic, manorial, urban, mercantile, and local courts.
1644:
courts relied little on legal scholarship; thus, at the turn of the twentieth century, it was very rare to see an academic writer quoted in a legal decision (except perhaps for the academic writings of prominent judges such as
613:
In federal systems the division between federal and state law may result in complex interactions. In the United States, state courts are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system.
497:
may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case may distinguish the decisions based on significant differences in the facts applicable to each case. Or, a court may view the matter before it as one of "
3589:, 54 Richmond L. Rev. 1139, 1140 (2020) (stating that âall state attorneys general share a common duty to issue written advisory opinions on matters of law to state officials who request themâ and discussing SAG opinions).
2592:
during the 20th century. He argued that courts should ban the citation of persuasive authority from outside their jurisdiction and force lawyers and parties to argue only from binding precedent, subject to two exceptions:
784:
There are three elements needed for a precedent to work. Firstly, the hierarchy of the courts needs to be accepted, and an efficient system of law reporting. "A balance must be struck between the need on one side for the
396:, by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. For example, in England and Wales, the
591:, the intermediate appellate courts are divided into thirteen "circuits", each covering some range of territory ranging in size from the District of Columbia alone, and up to seven states. Each panel of judges on the
1775:
further still. The existence of submerged precedent (reasoned opinions not made available through conventional legal research sources) has been identified as a potentially distorting force in the evolution of law.
2362:"n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. ... ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there."
2184:
1609:. In South Africa, the precedent of higher courts is absolutely or fully binding on lower courts, whereas the precedent of lower courts only has persuasive authority on higher courts; horizontally, precedent is
357:: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed". In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. The principle can be divided into two components:
1194:
Several rules may cause a decision to apply as narrow "precedent" to preclude future legal positions of the specific parties to a case, even if a decision is non-precedential with respect to all other parties.
2321:
the wording is ambiguous, the least absurd is to be preferred. Under the broad method, the court modifies the literal meaning in such a way as to avoid the absurd result. An example of the latter approach is
480:
In federal or multijurisdictional law systems, conflicts may exist between the various lower appellate courts. Sometimes these differences may not be resolved and distinguishing how the law is applied in one
2600:
instances where a litigant intends to ask the highest court of the jurisdiction to overturn binding precedent, and therefore needs to cite persuasive precedent to demonstrate a countervailing trend in other
2384:"In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage."
515:
in commercial and securities law, the Seventh Circuit (in Chicago), especially Judge Posner, is highly regarded on antitrust, and the District of Columbia Circuit is highly regarded on administrative law.
1892:
the Supreme Court attempts to preserve its role "as a careful, unbiased, and predictable decisionmaker that decides cases according to the law rather than the Justices' individual policy preferences." In
1501:
in any great detail. This is the result of the legislative positivist view that the court is only interpreting the legislature's intent and therefore detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this,
2582:
When your dog does anything you want to break him of, you wait till he does it, and then beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way the judges make law for you and
2188:
AC 375. After this case, once the Lords had given a ruling on a point of law, the matter was closed unless and until Parliament made a change by statute. This is the most strict form of the doctrine of
4376:, 93 F.3d 1358 (7th Cir. 1996), in which Judge Richard Posner followed the applicable Supreme Court precedent, while harshly criticizing it, which led the Supreme Court to overrule that precedent in
242:, if the same or higher courts on appeal or determination of subsequent cases found the principles underpinning the previous decision erroneous in law or overtaken by new legislation or developments.
3149:
364:
A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.
2508:
text or inferences of original intent (even in situations where there is no original source statement of that original intent). However, there is still room within an originalist paradigm for
6053:
1765:, the judges preferring to go from case to case, like the ancient Mediterranean mariners, hugging the coast from point to point, and avoiding the dangers of the open sea of system or science.
2236:(1986), two decades after the Practice Statement. Remarkably, the precedent overruled had been made only a year before, but it had been criticised by several academic lawyers. As a result,
1291:
different answers in different legal contexts. Judges try to minimize these conflicts, but they arise from time to time, and under principles of 'stare decisis', may persist for some time.
2309:, where it was held that a shopkeeper who placed an illegal item in a shop window with a price tag did not make an offer to sell it, because of the specific meaning of "offer for sale" in
739:
means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedent from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by
174:
systems do not. Common-law systems aim for similar facts to yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observing precedent when making decisions is the mechanism to achieve that goal.
2472:
trend of other judicial decisions, changing context and improved scientific understanding, observation of practical outcomes and "what works", contemporary standards of justice, and
2089:(as quoted at length above). For example, in the years 1946â1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:
1560:), may also issue decisions that act as guides for the application of the law, but these decisions are persuasive, not controlling, and may therefore be overturned by higher courts.
3139:"Applying Federal Court of Appeals' Precedent: Contrasting Approaches to Applying Court of Appeals' Federal Law Holdings and Erie State Law Predictions, 3 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 1"
2373:"A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary."
6485:
2045:, 505 U.S. 833, at 864 (1992) (plurality opinion): " decision to overrule should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided." The
2447:, the federal courts are bound by the interpretation of a state court of last resort, and are required normally to defer to the precedent of intermediate state courts as well.
2154:
requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike." Roberts provided the fifth vote to uphold the 2016 decision, even though he felt it was wrongly decided.
1745:â"to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled". Consider the word "decisis". The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Under the doctrine of
1141:(by this point all US jurisdictions save Tennessee, five other states, and the District of Columbia had adopted comparative negligence schemes). Moreover, in American law, the
2516:
of the text has alternative constructions, past precedent is generally considered a valid guide, with the qualifier being that it cannot change what the text actually says.
2504:
nation. By principle, originalists are generally unwilling to defer to precedent when precedent seems to come into conflict with the originalist's own interpretation of the
2150:
that struck down a similar Texas law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. Roberts wrote, "The legal doctrine of
2017:, 491 U.S. 164, at 172 (1989): "Our precedents are not sacrosanct, for we have overruled prior decisions where the necessity and propriety of doing so has been established."
1717:, Brandeis "catalogued the Court's actual overruling practices in such a powerful manner that his attendant stare decisis analysis immediately assumed canonical authority."
1814:
Royal courts were not organised into a hierarchy; instead, different royal courts (exchequer, common pleas, king's bench, and chancery) were in competition with each other.
349:) is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the
2915:," can safely be called settled law. It appears to be equally well accepted that the act of disregarding vertical precedent qualifies as one kind of judicial activism. "
2358:
In the United States, the courts have stated consistently that the text of the statute is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
6046:
4319:
1857:
courts into a unified system of courts with a formal hierarchical structure. This and the advent of reliable private case reporters made adherence to the doctrine of
1853:
courts themselves. During the nineteenth century, legal reform movements in both England and the United States brought this to an end as well by merging the various
1323:
By definition, a case of first impression cannot be decided by precedent. Since there is no precedent for the court to follow, the court uses the plain language and
442:
361:
A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.
528:
The doctrine of vertical precedent states that each court is bound by the decisions of higher courts in its jurisdictional area or tribunal hierarchy. Generally, a
595:
for a circuit is bound to obey the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedent of a United States court of appeals may be overruled only by the court
1782:
to precedent in order to establish which precedent is most important or authoritative, and how the court's interpretations and priorities have changed over time.
1450:
systems, because it violates the legislative positivist principle that only the legislature may make law. Instead, the civil law system relies on the doctrine of
634:
In practice, however, judges in one system will almost always choose to follow relevant case law in the other system to prevent divergent results and to minimize
2704:
2574:
One of the most prominent critics of the development of legal precedent on a case-by-case basis as both overly reactive and unfairly retroactive was philosopher
2325:(1964). Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces "in the vicinity of" a prohibited place. Adler argued that he was not in the
1137:
1028:
is usually translated as "other things said", but due to the high number of judges and individual concurring opinions, it is often hard to distinguish from the
5972:
2418:
Occasionally, lower court judges may explicitly state a personal disagreement with the rendered judgment, but are required to rule a particular way because of
2085:
In the U.S. Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases, as observed by Justice Brandeis in his landmark dissent in
1162:
836:, to a varying degree in different jurisdictions, are deemed overriding which means they are used to "read down" legislation, that is giving them a particular
1910:
lawsuits can be quickly and efficiently dismissed because legal battles can be resolved through recourse to rules and principles established prior decisions.
6039:
2699:
2541:
Possibly he has changed his mind, or there are a very large body of cases which merit "the additional step" of ignoring the doctrine; according to Scalia, "
563:
makes no sense. The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the
1734:
1721:
1273:
On many questions, reasonable people may differ. When two of those people are judges, the tension among two lines of precedent may be resolved as follows.
992:
1153:
often as persuasive precedent, although it is also fairly common for a state high court to reject a federal court's interpretation of its jurisprudence.
789:
resulting from the binding effect of previous decisions, and on the other side the avoidance of undue restriction on the proper development of the law."
559:, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of
3096:
2909:"refused to follow" a "controlling precedent" of the Supreme Court. The rule that lower courts should abide by controlling precedent, sometimes called "
2949:
204:. A precedent is a historical setting example for the future (though at varying levels of authority as discussed throughout this article), some become
1883:, but also "the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion."
222:(if precedent is persuasive), if the principles underpinning the previous decision are accordingly used to evaluate the issues of the subsequent case;
4907:
4700:
4471:
2454:, because foreign decisions are not binding. Rather, a foreign decision that is obeyed on the basis of the soundness of its reasoning will be called
2333:
it. The court chose not to read the statutory wording in a literal sense to avoid what would otherwise be an absurd result, and Adler was convicted.
1431:, not very analytical, and fact-based. The reason for this difference is that these civil law jurisdictions apply legislative positivism â a form of
3380:
2500:
systems, because it violates the principle that only the legislature may make law." Justice Scalia argues that America is a civil law nation, not a
2059:, 467 U.S. 203, at 212 (1984): "Although adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases, any departure from the doctrine of
1861:
practical and the practice soon evolved of holding judges to be bound by the decisions of courts of superior or equal status in their jurisdiction.
1517:
tend to be much more developed than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and doctrinal writers. However, some courts (such as
2480:
the text, not changing itâinterpretation is the process of resolving ambiguity and choosing from among possible meanings, not changing the text.
544:. Thus, the lower courts are bound to obey precedent established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent.
1417:
and constitute a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called
1049:
an explanation of how the outcome of the case might be different on slightly different facts, in an attempt to limit the holding of the majority
6219:
4403:, 502 U.S. 197, 202, 112 S. Ct. 560, 565 (1991)("we will not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification").
4016:
3878:
Elizabeth Y. McCuskey, Clarity and Clarification: Grable Federal Questions in the Eyes of Their Beholders, 91 NEB. L. REV. 387, 427-430 (2012)
3053:
2389:
2220:("guilty mind") by measuring a defendant's conduct against that of a "reasonable person", regardless of the defendant's actual state of mind.
1525:
courts, but have more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is.
1032:(reason for the decision). For these reasons, the obiter dicta may often be taken into consideration by a court. A litigant may also consider
6490:
6480:
1596:, do not fit into the civil vs. common law dichotomy because they mix portions of both. Such systems may have been heavily influenced by the
1536:, for instance, case law arguably plays a more important role than in some of the continental civil law systems. The two highest courts, the
1552:), have the right to set precedent which has persuasive authority on all future application of the law. Appellate courts, be they judicial (
813:
The position in the court hierarchy of the court which decided the precedent, relative to the position in the court trying the current case.
158:
when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called
1460:
using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law. This doctrine is similar to
4676:"Stopping the Pendulum: Why Stare Decisis Should Constrain the Court from Further Modification of the Search Incident to Arrest Exception"
4642:
1849:
courts had absorbed most of the business of their nonroyal competitors, although there was still internal competition among the different
1749:
a case is important only for what it decidesâfor the "what", not for the "why", and not for the "how". Insofar as precedent is concerned,
236:, if the same court on determination of the same case on order from a higher court modified one or more parts of the previous decision; or
3271:
1024:
in the opinions of higher courts. The Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The phrase
6589:
6500:
4135:
2981:
2370:(1992). Indeed, "hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.' "
2346:(1584), it allows the court to enforce what the statute is intended to remedy rather than what the words actually say. For example, in
917:
as a "super-precedent". He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.
449:
Judges may refer to various types of persuasive authority to reach a decision in a case. Widely cited nonbinding sources include legal
425:
384:
tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedent, which record how and why prior
6632:
6555:
5020:
580:
The doctrine stating that a judge is bound by (or at least should respect) previous decisions by the same court is called horizontal
4118:
1817:
Substantial law on almost all matters was neither legislated nor codified, eliminating the need for courts to interpret legislation.
8313:
6116:
5917:
3914:
2175:
709:
1316:, so that the matter has to be decided for the first time. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular
8404:
6849:
3527:
4054:
3961:
1532:
are sometimes considered a branch of the civil law, but they are sometimes counted as separate from the civil law tradition. In
960:
that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.
618:
When a federal court rules on an issue of state law, the federal court must follow the precedent of the state courts, under the
6495:
6436:
6106:
2548:
Caleb Nelson, a former clerk for Justice Thomas and law professor at the University of Virginia, has elaborated on the role of
2146:
1969:, 502 U.S. 197, at 202 (1991): "Adherence to precedent promotes stability, predictability, and respect for judicial authority."
1545:
1427:
but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short, referring only to
1085:
Often, these opinions are the only available authority interpreting rarelyâlitigated statutes and constitutional provisions.
937:
administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in
689:, a binding precedent (also known as a mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all
473:. Some bodies are given statutory powers to issue guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the
254:, where past decisions do not usually have the precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making; the
4900:
4186:
3762:
2545:
doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let's get it right."
2313:, merely an invitation to treat. As a result of this case, Parliament amended the statute concerned to end this discrepancy.
2285:
A judge's normal aids include access to all previous cases in which a precedent has been set, and a good English dictionary.
833:
6530:
6515:
4327:
872:
the difficulty of overturning a decision. In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in
429:
2422:. Inferior courts cannot evade binding precedent of superior courts, but a court can depart from its own prior decisions.
8424:
6510:
6446:
2179:
2136:
705:
405:
5248:
1036:
if a court has previously signaled that a particular legal argument is weak and may even warrant sanctions if repeated.
111:
6565:
6214:
2113:
As Colin Starger has pointed out, the contemporary rule of stare decisis descended from Brandeis's landmark dissent in
1003:
Courts may consider rulings made in other courts that are of equivalent authority in the legal system. For example, an
903:
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the committee chair, Senator
588:
4398:
3028:
2450:
Courts may choose to obey precedent of international jurisdictions, but this is not an application of the doctrine of
1947:
requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable." (citations omitted)
878:
for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in
755:
In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to
511:
cited as persuasive (though of course opinions that concur in the majority result are more persuasive than dissents).
83:
7739:
7297:
7196:
6545:
6540:
6520:
6345:
4625:
4593:
4559:
4284:
4260:
3228:
2197:
jurisdictions, where there was somewhat greater flexibility for a court of last resort to review its own precedent).
1389:
205:
187:
183:
130:
2053:
stated also that reexamining precedent requires more than "a present doctrinal disposition to come out differently".
1276:
8394:
7853:
7722:
7128:
6599:
6535:
6067:
5504:
4893:
4675:
1820:
Common law's main distinctive features and focus were not substantial law, which was customary law, but procedural.
1497:) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and not going into the
4770:
8308:
7655:
7556:
6570:
4728:
90:
2204:
of 1966. The House of Lords decided to allow itself to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions. In
1826:
Customary law was not a rational and consistent body of rules and did not require a system of binding precedent.
8414:
7815:
7449:
6505:
6262:
5950:
5753:
4050:
3957:
2401:. Once the ambiguity is resolved, that resolution has binding effect as described in the rest of this article.
1304:
A matter of first impression (also known as an "issue of first impression", "case of first impression", or, in
841:
592:
68:
17:
2483:
The two approaches look at different sets of underlying facts that may or may not point in the same directionâ
2013:
7168:
6909:
6763:
6625:
6416:
5884:
2299:(1987), in which several judges in separate opinions found several different dictionary meanings of the word
568:
461:
2956:
7975:
7454:
6525:
6081:
6006:
5939:
5758:
5484:
3125:
988:
97:
2166:
is basic to the English legal system. Special features of the English legal system include the following:
816:
Whether the facts of the current case come within the scope of the principle of law in previous decisions.
7970:
6992:
6550:
6431:
6312:
6192:
6011:
5906:
5015:
3395:
2931:
precedent would not be judicial activism; instead, it would be appropriate constitutional decisionmaking.
2117:
would later split into strong and weak conceptions as a result of the disagreement between Chief Justice
2079:
2041:
1935:
1753:
is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.
1466:
1186:
874:
602:
564:
548:
31:
2519:
Originalists vary in the degree to which they defer to precedent. In his confirmation hearings, Justice
1115:
of English authority was ubiquitous. One of the first acts of many of the new state legislatures was to
504:
When various members of a multi-judge court write separate opinions, the reasoning may differ; only the
7945:
7444:
6464:
6426:
6257:
6016:
5895:
4780:
3097:"51 Texas Law Review 1972-1973 Binding Effect of Federal Declaratory Judgments on State Courts Comment"
1944:
1371:
1360:
949:, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
697:
64:
35:
6031:
2995:
79:
8028:
7017:
6969:
6559:
5983:
5175:
4964:
3842:
3194:
1470:
1176:. Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished.
630:
court of appeals embracing their states, as a matter of comity rather than constitutional obligation.
4496:
4043:
3455:
2037:. at 34 (2018): "We will not overturn a past decision unless there are strong grounds for doing so."
1823:
The practice of citing previous cases was not to find binding legal rules but as evidence of custom.
8409:
7823:
7805:
7116:
7012:
6821:
6768:
6618:
6411:
5961:
5394:
5200:
4854:
4383:
4371:
4028:
3057:
2926:
and Vikram Amar have stated, "Our general view is that the Rehnquist Court's articulated theory of
2663:
2497:
2398:
2271:
1951:
1741:
Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of
1662:
1456:, according to which if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same
1447:
1403:
964:
837:
713:
247:
171:
8157:
8419:
8399:
8198:
7985:
7474:
7459:
6713:
6302:
6242:
6167:
5459:
4984:
3355:"William Tetley, Mixed jurisdictions: common law vs civil law (codified and uncodified) (Part I)"
3322:
1914:
can thus encourage parties to settle cases out of court and thereby enhance judicial efficiency.
1870:
Over time courts in the United States and especially its Supreme Court developed a large body of
1537:
1452:
1277:
Jurisdictional splits: disagreements among different geographical regions or levels of federalism
1132:
1128:
1062:
disagreement with the majority and to urge reform (while following the majority in the outcome).
597:
57:
4413:
4203:
4055:"The Supreme Court's Overruling of Constitutional Precedent; see Footnotes 43-44, 47, 48 and 69"
372:, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions.
8253:
8238:
6748:
5253:
5190:
5185:
4657:
4458:
3661:
3600:
The Opinion Power of the State Attorney General and the Attorney General as a Public Law Actor,
3570:
3506:
3478:
2683:
2566:
There are disadvantages and advantages of binding precedent, as noted by scholars and jurists.
2397:
reach a resolution of the ambiguity. The "Canons of statutory construction" are discussed in a
1923:
1585:
1149:
1124:
470:
3952:
3950:
3948:
3946:
3944:
2881:
2501:
2194:
1658:
1407:
1312:) is an issue where the parties disagree on what the applicable law is, and there is no prior
1099:
802:
694:
432:, provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development of the concept of
389:
8357:
7950:
7628:
7439:
6861:
6804:
6698:
6683:
6307:
6267:
6131:
6096:
6063:
5866:
5364:
5100:
4583:
4549:
4483:
4378:
4349:
4174:
3750:
2645:
1116:
455:
2440:
1808:
1796:
1762:
175:
8078:
7424:
6844:
6362:
6297:
6207:
6197:
5499:
5160:
3941:
2714:
2668:
2456:
1654:
1506:
is carried out by legal academics (doctrinal writers) who provide the explanations that in
1424:
1339:
1332:
490:
369:
259:
4224:
3245:
8:
8233:
7373:
7290:
7097:
6866:
6854:
6811:
6421:
6379:
6333:
6247:
6187:
5928:
5544:
5369:
5243:
5180:
5165:
4115:
4024:
3856:, Hamburg, Germany: Max-Planck-Institut fßr ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
2460:âindicating that its effect is limited to the persuasiveness of the reasons it provides.
1581:
1324:
1239:
1232:
1007:
for one district could consider a ruling issued by an appeals court in another district.
493:
will resolve such differences, and for many reasons, such appeals are often not granted.
3923:
1367:
8048:
7707:
7561:
7546:
7524:
7268:
7248:
7201:
7191:
7062:
6401:
6389:
6384:
6340:
6290:
6147:
6126:
6121:
5655:
5474:
5399:
5170:
4959:
4949:
4530:
3994:
3686:
3511:
3436:
3354:
2829:
2709:
2513:
2201:
2127:
2100:
2021:
2001:
1989:
1981:
1973:
1960:
1895:
1650:
909:
623:
408:
is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so.
104:
4475:
4062:
3531:
987:
A court may consider the ruling of a higher court that is not binding. For example, a
8389:
8033:
7955:
7793:
7536:
7531:
7484:
7409:
7403:
7243:
7161:
6964:
6944:
6889:
6441:
6396:
6372:
6355:
6252:
6237:
6202:
6152:
5820:
5783:
5714:
5665:
5539:
5268:
4979:
4621:
4589:
4555:
4280:
4256:
4182:
3969:
3846:
3824:
3758:
3494:
3440:
3224:
2975:
2821:
2419:
2317:
2122:
2118:
2046:
1313:
1104:
933:
798:
4825:
2833:
2082:
has put it: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding".
8038:
8005:
7504:
7368:
7363:
7328:
7024:
6871:
6839:
6816:
6652:
6406:
6367:
6328:
5830:
5685:
5374:
5354:
5288:
5258:
5233:
5195:
4974:
4522:
3897:
3816:
3711:
3428:
2813:
2724:
2688:
2342:
1879:. The United States Supreme Court considers stare decisis not only as an important
1871:
1593:
1529:
1484:
also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions of
1432:
1328:
1243:
1220:
1173:
821:
276:
251:
4758:
4297:
3082:
2760:
2288:
Judges and barristers in the UK use three primary rules for interpreting the law.
1829:
Before the printing press, the state of the written records of cases rendered the
759:
the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent.
601:, that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the
8287:
8260:
8248:
8228:
8162:
8140:
8120:
8115:
8095:
7960:
7940:
7935:
7838:
7798:
7509:
7434:
7358:
7343:
7263:
7087:
7077:
7034:
6984:
6934:
6929:
6924:
6794:
6789:
6733:
6723:
6662:
6657:
6350:
6285:
6157:
5670:
5424:
5404:
5359:
5145:
4866:
4830:
4450:
4122:
3901:
3889:
3015:
2734:
2542:
2520:
2505:
2226:
2029:
1956:
1569:
1413:
1262:
1255:
1004:
968:
896:
786:
728:
717:
652:
537:
506:
486:
401:
255:
4742:
3545:
2852:
1684:
8364:
8172:
8090:
7679:
7645:
7596:
7581:
7353:
7258:
7238:
7228:
7072:
7041:
7029:
6997:
6939:
6904:
6899:
6831:
6693:
6688:
6641:
6162:
6101:
6091:
6086:
5840:
5835:
5719:
5489:
5414:
5318:
5283:
4934:
4842:
3922:. Vol. 1. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. pp. 92â93. Archived from
2719:
2575:
2524:
2489:
2256:
2006:
1880:
1779:
1636:
1305:
868:
635:
466:
226:
191:
186:(that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of
4382:, 522 U.S. 3 (1997); see also the concurring opinion of Chief Judge Walker in
3820:
8383:
8218:
8177:
8063:
8043:
8015:
7965:
7930:
7904:
7899:
7892:
7843:
7783:
7623:
7613:
7571:
7494:
7489:
7419:
7378:
7302:
7082:
7007:
6959:
6784:
6743:
6738:
6718:
6708:
5861:
5469:
5328:
5120:
5050:
4954:
4083:
3828:
2825:
2694:
2658:
2444:
2378:
2367:
2337:
2305:
2178:, as the court of last appeal outside Scotland before it was replaced by the
2071:
1653:). Today academic writers are often cited in legal argument and decisions as
1457:
1213:
property damage, and then personal injury in a separate case. This is called
1142:
1058:
904:
778:
740:
619:
541:
179:
2633:
wishes to alter the case law (other than constitutional interpretations) by
2169:
8350:
8100:
8068:
8023:
7761:
7756:
7727:
7640:
7618:
7586:
7519:
7499:
7393:
7333:
7323:
7275:
7233:
7211:
7154:
7067:
7002:
6954:
6949:
6881:
6758:
6753:
5871:
5680:
5585:
5449:
5278:
5263:
4989:
4818:
4806:
4510:
3498:
2882:
World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions: a Resource for Readers and Writers
2673:
2310:
2292:
2253:
had been wrongly decided and agreed to depart from their earlier decision.
2232:
2212:
2182:, was not strictly bound to always follow its own decisions until the case
2075:
1928:
1419:
1317:
1215:
1207:
1020:
957:
900:
474:
450:
421:
4885:
4861:
3195:"Case Law in a Legal System Without Binding Precedent: The French Example"
2144:. In this case, the Court upheld, by a 5â4 margin, their 2016 decision in
1190:, claim preclusion, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, law of the case
1092:
895:(or "super-precedent") was mentioned during the hearings of Chief Justice
8272:
8213:
8203:
8000:
7995:
7833:
7734:
7650:
7609:
7576:
7541:
7464:
7388:
7338:
7253:
6919:
6894:
6728:
6678:
5845:
5778:
5595:
5514:
5298:
5273:
5223:
5135:
5095:
5090:
5070:
5065:
5055:
5040:
5035:
3781:, 608 F.2d 965, 969-970 (3rd Cir. 1979) (footnote omitted), as quoted in
3640:
Carolina Attorney General's interpretation of this South Carolina law.â).
3085:(2007) (Ninth Circuit decisions do not bind Supreme Court of California).
2798:
2678:
2630:
2597:
cases where the foreign jurisdiction's law is the subject of the case, or
2589:
2468:
2277:
precedent, and experience with various interpretations of similar texts.
2237:
1940:
1646:
1513:
In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries,
1340:
Contrasting role of case law in common law, civil law, and mixed systems
1169:
946:
880:
756:
701:
690:
678:
533:
4765:
164:(a Latin phrase with the literal meaning "to stand by things decided").
8336:
8265:
8145:
8083:
7828:
7749:
7744:
7702:
7684:
7672:
7633:
7479:
7469:
7429:
7414:
7398:
7348:
7285:
7280:
7092:
6974:
6914:
6703:
6061:
5600:
5529:
5419:
5338:
5323:
5303:
5115:
5085:
5075:
5045:
4920:
4794:
4618:
Profit and the Practice of Law: What's Happened to the Legal Profession
4534:
3797:, 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
3785:, 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
3413:
2901:
Kmiec, Keenan. The Origin and Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism",
2817:
2435:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1641:
1626:
1597:
1522:
1507:
1485:
1179:
1070:
991:
in the United States First Circuit could consider a ruling made by the
829:
825:
773:
567:
are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the
529:
397:
385:
381:
201:
167:
147:
3877:
3662:"LibGuides: Depublication of California Cases: What is Depublication?"
2617:
because it allows judges, who may or may not be elected, to make law.
1837:
These features changed over time, opening the door to the doctrine of
1757:
Lord Hodge of the UK Supreme Court quoted Lord Wright in 1938 saying:
8243:
8208:
8150:
8125:
7990:
7887:
7875:
7860:
7848:
7776:
7694:
7551:
5804:
5724:
5643:
5580:
5509:
5384:
5293:
5228:
5153:
5140:
5125:
5110:
5080:
5060:
3866:
Judge-made law is an independent source of law in common law systems.
2614:
2200:
This situation changed, however, after the House of Lords issued the
1622:
1573:
972:
942:
809:
Two facts are crucial to determining whether a precedent is binding:
704:
it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as the
8331:
4789:
4526:
4017:"Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions"
3854:
Rabels Zeitschrift fßr ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
3809:
Rabels Zeitschrift fßr ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
2240:
stated he was "undeterred by the consideration that the decision in
1521:
courts) have less emphasis on the particular facts of the case than
46:
8292:
8277:
7980:
7865:
7662:
7206:
5768:
5524:
5379:
5313:
5238:
5205:
5105:
4994:
4916:
3432:
2217:
2034:
1631:
1577:
1465:
result, the precedent of courts of last resort, such as the French
1108:
976:
845:
721:
608:
482:
433:
197:
170:
legal systems often view precedent as binding or persuasive, while
155:
6610:
4350:"Part E - The rules of statutory interpretation - The golden rule"
3235:(Rombauer was a professor of law at the University of Washington.)
2340:
is the most flexible of the interpretation methods. Stemming from
1997:
will allow courts swiftly to dispose of repetitive suits ..."
956:", courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other
8182:
8130:
8110:
8058:
7870:
7788:
7604:
7566:
7514:
7057:
6111:
5810:
5575:
5534:
5479:
5454:
5308:
5130:
5030:
4753:
3308:
1966 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) by Lord Gardiner L.C
2634:
1518:
1428:
1172:. "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the
2353:
1688:, 405â411 (1932), explained (citations and quotations omitted):
746:
One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows:
182:(that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and
8282:
8135:
7880:
7771:
7766:
7712:
7383:
5815:
5650:
5605:
4944:
4939:
4105:, 285 U.S. 393, 406â407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
3795:
United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne)
3783:
United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne)
2739:
2249:(2002), the majority of House members adopted the opinion that
1616:
1589:
1533:
1494:
413:
4513:(2001). "Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedent".
4181:. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 19â46.
4049:
3956:
3892:
and Sangick Jeon, "The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent",
3847:"The scope of judicial law-making in the common law tradition"
3757:. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 19â46.
3625:
State Attorneys General as Interpreters of State Constitutions
3587:
The State Attorney Generalâs Duty to Advice as a Source of Law
2527:, qualifying his willingness to change precedent in this way:
1117:
adopt the body of English common law into the law of the state
1052:
planting seeds for a future overruling of the majority opinion
641:
288:
8223:
8167:
8073:
7914:
7717:
7216:
4872:
4620:. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. pp. 161â163.
4588:(4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 74.
2729:
2206:
938:
350:
335:
151:
4585:
Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory
3962:"The Supreme Court's Overruling of Constitutional Precedent"
2257:
Distinguishing precedent on legal (rather than fact) grounds
8105:
8053:
7909:
7307:
7223:
6799:
2434:
can interact in counterintuitive ways with the federal and
2210:
UKHL 50, the House of Lords overruled its 1981 decision in
341:
311:
294:
2613:
An argument often leveled against precedent is that it is
1678:
Justice Louis Brandeis, in a heavily footnoted dissent to
1661:
systems are adopting one of the approaches long common in
1510:
jurisdictions would be provided by the judges themselves.
489:
may be necessary. Usually, only an appeal accepted by the
7177:
5611:
3479:"Abortion, Precedent, and the Constitution: A Comment on
2170:
The Supreme Court's ability to override its own precedent
1803:
doctrine for a range of legal and technological reasons:
1695:
is not ... a universal, inexorable command. "The rule of
1634:
and may be published in treatises or in journals such as
686:
443:
Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd
317:
302:
4116:
Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decision
3481:
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
2030:
Janus v. Am. Fed. of State, County, & Mun. Employees
1226:
3414:"Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis"
2705:
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
2140:
provides a clear statement of the strong conception of
1939:, 505 U.S. 833, at 854 (1992): "he very concept of the
1168:
decide whether a decision is to be or not published in
1093:
Persuasive effect of decisions from other jurisdictions
657:
Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as
7146:
3072:
2134:
The opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in the case
1285:
1163:
Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States
777:(that is, they agree to hear a case) is if there is a
4778:
4252:
Textbook on Legal Methods, Legal Systems and Research
3800:
3221:
Legal Problem Solving: Analysis, Research and Writing
3174:
Alexander, Larry (1989). "Constrained by Precedent".
2700:
List of landmark court decisions in the United States
2280:
1370:. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are
329:
320:
314:
308:
282:
4298:"R v Maginnis [1987] UKHL 4 (05 March 1987)"
2847:
2845:
2843:
2799:"The Human Rights Act and the doctrine of precedent"
2578:. He famously attacked the common law as "dog law":
2265:
1735:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1722:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1071:
Treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews.
993:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
797:
Judges are bound by the law of binding precedent in
404:
are each bound by their own previous decisions. The
338:
332:
299:
291:
285:
3323:"Binding Precedent and English Judicial Law-Making"
2640:There is much discussion about the virtue of using
1967:
Hilton v. South Carolina Public. Railway Commission
792:
326:
305:
279:
71:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
3989:
3987:
2625:A counter-argument (in favor of the advantages of
1079:
1010:
982:
932:) is precedent or other legal writing that is not
851:
388:have been decided. Unlike most civil-law systems,
6122:Cabinet department / Office of the prime minister
4168:
4166:
3997:. Justia US Supreme Court Center. 14 January 1986
3995:"Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986), at 266"
3223:(3rd ed.). West Publishing. pp. 22â23.
2840:
1198:
375:
8381:
4476:"The Bombshell in the Clarence Thomas Biography"
4470:
3193:Project, China Guiding Cases (9 February 2016).
832:and principles of the common law such as in the
609:Federalism and parallel state and federal courts
3984:
3739:, 4th ed. (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2007), 37.
2561:
1563:
953:
498:
4163:
2185:London Street Tramways v London County Council
605:ânot simply by a different three-judge panel.
501:", not governed by any controlling precedent.
211:Generally speaking, a legal precedent may be:
178:is a third kind of law, on equal footing with
7162:
6626:
6047:
5973:Autonomous types of first-tier administration
4901:
4225:"R v G (2003) â recklessness in criminal law"
2354:Statutory interpretation in the United States
1865:
1299:
4179:Precedent in the United States Supreme Court
3755:Precedent in the United States Supreme Court
3525:
3453:
3411:
3316:
3314:
2425:
1617:Role of academics in civil law jurisdictions
1156:
4915:
4547:
4541:
3094:
3029:"14.5 Decisions of Federal Courts. | USCIS"
2620:
2216:, which had allowed the Lords to establish
1131:as a complete bar to recovery) by the 1992
642:Categories and classifications of precedent
7169:
7155:
6633:
6619:
6168:Assistant minister/Parliamentary secretary
6054:
6040:
4908:
4894:
3246:"Introduction To The Federal Court System"
1845:By the end of the eighteenth century, the
1778:Scholars have recently attempted to apply
518:
4640:
4279:(4th ed.), p. 25. London: Hodder Arnold.
4175:"The Dialectic of Stare Decisis Doctrine"
3751:"The Dialectic of Stare Decisis Doctrine"
3507:"So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'?"
3412:Landes, William; Posner, Richard (1976).
3320:
3311:
3173:
3012:Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
2875:
2873:
2796:
2569:
1613:or presumptively binding between courts.
1390:Learn how and when to remove this message
1327:of any statute that must be interpreted,
551:'s explanation of this principle is that
131:Learn how and when to remove this message
27:Rule established in an earlier legal case
8314:History of the American legal profession
4461:(June 2003) Accessed 8 January 2007 UTC.
4385:National Abortion Federation v. Gonzalez
3378:
3218:
2404:
1366:Relevant discussion may be found on the
710:judicial functions of the House of Lords
262:can be regarded as a notable exception.
146:is a principle or rule established in a
4673:
4615:
4554:. Oxford: Hart Publishing. p. 41.
4418:American Academy of Arts & Sciences
4414:"The Supreme Court in the 21st Century"
4204:"June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo"
4172:
3748:
3742:
3528:"Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Roe v. Wade"
3192:
3136:
2897:
2895:
2893:
2891:
2157:
2104:, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944)(Reed, S.F.).
920:
575:
206:"leading cases" or "landmark decisions"
14:
8382:
4701:"Legal skills and debates in Scotland"
4509:
4312:
3916:Hayek, the Common Law, and Fluid Drive
3272:"Comparing Federal & State Courts"
2980:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
2870:
2413:
2386:Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
2042:Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey
1936:Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey
1729:lower court in the judicial hierarchy.
1039:
720:systems, precedent is not binding but
7150:
6614:
6035:
4889:
4876:
4581:
4575:
4400:Hilton vs. Carolina Pub. Rys. Comm'n.
3841:
3619:
3617:
3615:
3613:
3611:
3609:
3581:
3579:
3504:
3476:
3056:. Faculty.law.lsu.edu. Archived from
2162:The doctrine of binding precedent or
1673:
1227:Collateral estoppel, issue preclusion
979:is taken into account by the courts.
834:Universal Declaration of Human Rights
724:is taken into account by the courts.
523:
7123:
4643:"The Doctrine of Judicial Democracy"
4248:
4103:Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.
4091:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
2888:
2644:. Supporters of the system, such as
1680:Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.
1668:
1438:
1343:
1065:
998:
781:as to the meaning of a federal law.
646:
69:adding citations to reliable sources
40:
6640:
6127:Speaker / President of the assembly
4656:(1). Chicago: 19â35. Archived from
4177:. In Peters, Christopher J. (ed.).
3753:. In Peters, Christopher J. (ed.).
2797:Pattinson, Shaun D (1 March 2015).
2147:Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
2137:June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo
2078:("things said by the way"). As the
1807:During the formative period of the
1402:The different roles of case law in
1286:Splits among different areas of law
1268:
1148:requires federal courts sitting in
907:of Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in
706:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
626:the question to the state's courts.
406:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
24:
6215:International development minister
4457:qtd. by Jan Crawford Greenburg on
3912:
3779:Allegheny General Hospital v. NLRB
3659:
3606:
3576:
3530:. Associated Press. Archived from
3526:Benac, Nancy (13 September 2005).
3505:Rosen, Jeffrey (30 October 2005).
3456:"The Per Curiam Opinion of Steel:
2942:
2496:is not usually a doctrine used in
2281:Statutory interpretation in the UK
1743:stare decisis et non quieta movere
1446:is not usually a doctrine used in
1249:
589:United States federal court system
355:Stare decisis et non quieta movere
25:
8436:
7298:Restitution and unjust enrichment
6590:Government ministers by portfolio
6346:Ministry of Education and Culture
4722:
4683:University of Illinois Law Review
3716:LII / Legal Information Institute
3691:LII / Legal Information Institute
3573:, 34 Pepperdine L. Rev. 3 (2007).
3550:LII / Legal Information Institute
2857:LII / Legal Information Institute
2523:answered a question from Senator
2364:Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain
2329:of such a place but was actually
2266:Rules of statutory interpretation
2193:(one not applied, previously, in
1769:
779:conflict among the circuit courts
208:that are cited especially often.
8345:
8344:
8330:
7122:
7111:
7110:
6595:
6594:
6584:
6583:
4860:
4848:
4836:
4824:
4812:
4800:
4788:
4764:
4752:
4551:Retroactivity and the Common Law
4136:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes"
2014:Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
1993:, 553 U.S. 880, at 903 (2008): "
1488:jurisdictions give a sufficient
1348:
793:Binding precedent in English law
727:Binding precedent relies on the
368:The second principle, regarding
275:
150:that becomes authoritative to a
45:
8309:History of the legal profession
5918:Social and political philosophy
4693:
4667:
4634:
4609:
4503:
4464:
4444:
4432:
4406:
4391:
4388:, 437 F. 3d 278 (2d Cir. 2006).
4364:
4342:
4326:. 22 March 2015. Archived from
4290:
4269:
4242:
4217:
4196:
4150:
4128:
4114:Congressional Research Service,
4108:
4096:
4089:, 531 U.S. 425 (2001), quoting
4077:
4009:
3906:
3883:
3871:
3835:
3788:
3772:
3729:
3704:
3679:
3653:
3643:
3630:
3592:
3563:
3538:
3519:
3470:
3447:
3405:
3372:
3347:
3302:
3289:
3264:
3238:
3212:
3186:
3167:
3130:
3119:
3088:
3046:
3021:
2230:(1985), which was overruled by
2063:demands special justification."
2005:, 501 U.S. 808, at 834 (1991) (
1927:, 558 U.S. 310, at 378 (2010) (
1833:doctrine utterly impracticable.
1080:State attorney general opinions
983:Higher courts in other circuits
975:, precedent is not binding but
673:, etc.). Under the doctrine of
465:, or the published work of the
392:systems follow the doctrine of
56:needs additional citations for
8405:Legal doctrines and principles
6263:Ministry of trade and industry
5754:Political history of the world
4877:
4051:Congressional Research Service
3958:Congressional Research Service
3815:(2). Mohr Siebeck: 211. 2020.
3454:Hayward, Allison (2005â2006).
3219:Rombauer, Marjorie D. (1978).
3005:
2988:
2790:
2778:
2753:
2552:in originalist jurisprudence:
2463:
1790:
1785:
842:European Court of Human Rights
376:Case law in common-law systems
13:
1:
6910:Needle and syringe programmes
6764:Universal access to education
6417:Ministry of religious affairs
4769:The dictionary definition of
4478:. Fulton County Daily Report.
4455:Senate Confirmation Hearings.
3627:, 17 Publius 133, 134 (1987).
3095:Martin, John H. (1972â1973).
2033:, 585 U.S. ___, No. 16-1466,
1713:In his "landmark dissent" in
1057:example, could not rely on a
569:superior courts of this state
5759:History of political thought
4616:Trotter, Michael H. (1997).
4255:. Universal Law Publishing.
4093:, 295 U. S. 602, 627 (1935).
3902:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001
3421:Journal of Law and Economics
3394:(2): 363â411. Archived from
3381:"Precedent, Super-Precedent"
3126:United States federal courts
2562:Advantages and disadvantages
1799:did not have or require the
1564:Mixed or bijuridical systems
1550:HĂśgsta fĂśrvaltningsdomstolen
1546:Supreme Administrative Court
1294:
265:
218:(if precedent is binding) /
7:
6993:Publicly funded health care
6432:Ministry of social security
6313:Ministry of water resources
6193:Ministry of foreign affairs
6062:Common types of government
4275:Martin, Jacqueline (2005).
4249:Saha, Tushar Kanti (2010).
4193:Available via SpringerLink.
3769:Available via SpringerLink.
3199:China Guiding Cases Project
2651:
2080:United States Supreme Court
1955:, 570 U.S. 99, 118 (2013) (
875:Planned Parenthood v. Casey
603:United States Supreme Court
549:Supreme Court of California
10:
8441:
8425:Judicial legal terminology
7976:International legal theory
7455:International slavery laws
7450:International human rights
7445:International criminal law
6465:Minister without portfolio
6427:Ministry of social affairs
6258:Ministry of infrastructure
4439:A Matter of Interpretation
4086:Green Co. v. United States
3687:"UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR"
3379:Sinclair, Michael (2007).
3297:Federal Appellate Practice
3137:Wrabley, Colin E. (2006).
2375:Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher
2269:
2074:of a case, rather than to
1866:United States legal system
1300:Matter of first impression
1253:
1230:
1205:
1160:
650:
462:Halsbury's Laws of England
29:
8324:
8301:
8191:
8029:Administration of justice
8014:
7923:
7814:
7693:
7595:
7316:
7184:
7106:
7050:
7018:National health insurance
6983:
6970:Supervised injection site
6880:
6830:
6777:
6671:
6648:
6579:
6516:Communications ministries
6473:
6457:
6321:
6276:
6228:
6176:
6140:
6074:
6002:
5995:
5854:
5796:
5744:
5737:
5705:
5698:
5638:
5631:
5566:
5557:
5440:
5433:
5347:
5216:
5003:
4965:National unity government
4927:
4883:
4743:Resources in your library
4641:McClellan, James (1969).
4548:Juratowitch, Ben (2008).
4160:, 519 U.S. 79, 84 (1996).
4158:O'Gilvie v. United States
4021:constitution.congress.gov
3821:10.1628/rabelsz-2020-0028
3585:Osvaldo Jordan, Comment,
3464:Cato Supreme Court Review
3321:Vong, David (1984â1985).
3054:"Mandatory v. Persuasive"
2787:, p. 1059 (5th ed. 1979).
2426:Structural considerations
2094:constitutional decisions.
1640:in France. Historically,
1528:The mixed systems of the
1477:binding on lower courts.
1473:, is recognized as being
1157:Nonprecedential decisions
995:as persuasive authority.
844:jurisprudence of courts (
565:District Courts of Appeal
416:the decision will stand.
7806:Basic structure doctrine
7656:Natural and legal rights
7537:Public international law
7013:Single-payer health care
6822:Universal basic services
6769:Universal basic services
6511:Climate change ministers
6412:Ministry of home affairs
5395:Environmental regulation
5201:Representative democracy
4277:The English Legal System
4138:. Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
3807:"Inhalt dieses Heftes".
2879:Adeleye, Gabriel et al.
2746:
2664:Case of first impression
2621:Agreement with precedent
2272:Statutory interpretation
1952:Alleyne v. United States
1331:of other jurisdictions,
954:case of first impression
838:purposive interpretation
663:metaphorically precedent
485:, province, division or
30:Not to be confused with
8395:Latin legal terminology
7986:Principle of typicality
7460:International trade law
7176:
6714:Public good (economics)
6600:Ministries by portfolio
6571:Public works ministries
6303:Ministry of electricity
6243:Ministry of the economy
6117:Office of the president
5460:Uncodified constitution
4985:Administrative division
4674:Berland, David (2011).
4582:Wacks, Raymond (2015).
4173:Starger, Colin (2013).
4121:13 January 2012 at the
3749:Starger, Colin (2013).
3666:legalresearch.usfca.edu
3388:George Mason Law Review
3295:Philip Allen Lacovara,
2476:. Both are directed at
2392:, 787â88 (Alaska 1996).
1630:judges; this is called
1607:jurisprudence constante
1586:Laws of the Philippines
1482:jurisprudence constante
1453:jurisprudence constante
1133:Tennessee Supreme Court
1129:contributory negligence
840:, for example applying
519:Dimensions of precedent
184:subordinate legislation
6536:Environment ministries
6506:Agriculture ministries
6501:Presidents of assembly
6496:Deputy prime ministers
4757:Quotations related to
4491:Cite journal requires
3083:40 Cal. 4th 1370, 1416
2939:
2785:Black's Law Dictionary
2585:
2570:Criticism of precedent
2559:
2539:
2430:In the United States,
2381:, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).
2121:and Associate Justice
2107:
1924:Citizens United v. FEC
1863:
1767:
1761:hat is the way of the
1755:
1731:
1711:
1125:comparative negligence
888:" now usually refers.
753:
708:, which took over the
573:
471:American Law Institute
8415:Persuasion techniques
7981:Principle of legality
7740:Delegated legislation
7440:Intellectual property
6862:Public infrastructure
6699:Public administration
6684:Free-culture movement
6531:Environment ministers
6437:Minister for Veterans
6308:Ministry of Petroleum
6268:Ministry of transport
6107:Deputy First Minister
6097:Deputy prime minister
5951:aspects of capitalism
5867:History of philosophy
5365:Unemployment benefits
5101:Military dictatorship
4379:State Oil Co. v. Khan
4373:State Oil Co. v. Khan
4053:(24 September 2018).
3960:(24 September 2018).
3569:Coale & Couture,
3359:www.cisg.law.pace.edu
2906:
2903:California Law Review
2605:The disadvantages of
2580:
2554:
2529:
2405:Practical application
2368:112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149
2303:. Another example is
2091:
1843:
1759:
1739:
1726:
1690:
1556:) or administrative (
1138:McIntyre v. Balentine
1107:and certain areas of
891:The concept of super-
748:
555:nder the doctrine of
553:
456:Corpus Juris Secundum
426:High Court of Justice
260:constitutional courts
188:delegated legislation
8199:Barristers' chambers
8141:Legal representation
8079:Justice of the peace
7425:Financial regulation
6526:Education ministries
6363:Information minister
6298:Environment minister
6208:Ministry of interior
6198:Immigration minister
5885:Political ideologies
5161:Parliamentary system
3477:Maltz, Earl (1992).
3276:United States Courts
2918:Horizontal precedent
2715:Persuasive precedent
2669:Commanding precedent
2457:persuasive authority
2158:English legal system
1945:our own Constitution
1655:persuasive authority
1425:persuasive authority
1359:factual accuracy is
1333:persuasive authority
1018:Courts may consider
930:persuasive authority
926:Persuasive precedent
921:Persuasive precedent
587:For example, in the
576:Horizontal precedent
491:court of last resort
487:appellate department
370:persuasive precedent
250:systems adhere to a
194:(in US parlance)).
190:(in UK parlance) or
176:Common-law precedent
65:improve this article
8234:Election commission
7946:Expressive function
7475:Landlordâtenant law
7374:Consumer protection
7098:Public viewing area
6867:Public water system
6855:Municipal broadband
6812:Public broadcasting
6422:Ministry of science
6380:Ministry of justice
6373:Ministry of housing
6334:Ministry of culture
6248:Ministry of finance
6188:Ministry of defence
6007:Forms of government
5940:Conservatism navbox
5545:Legislative council
5370:National healthcare
5244:Christian democracy
5166:Presidential system
5021:Countries by system
4515:Virginia Law Review
4025:Library of Congress
3845:(28 October 2019),
3460:as Superprecedent?"
2996:"First Impressions"
2994:Coale & Dyrek,
2414:Judicial resistance
2348:Corkery v Carpenter
1325:legislative history
1310:primae impressionis
1240:collateral estoppel
1233:Collateral estoppel
1040:Dissenting opinions
1011:Statements made in
8192:Legal institutions
8059:Lawsuit/Litigation
8049:Dispute resolution
7854:Catholic canon law
7562:State of emergency
7525:Will and testament
7249:Law of obligations
7202:Constitutional law
7192:Administrative law
7063:Government auction
6749:Public procurement
6566:Interior ministers
6447:Minister for women
6402:Ministry of sports
6390:Ministry of labour
6385:Minister of labour
6356:Ministry of health
6341:Education minister
6291:Ministry of energy
6148:Secretary of state
6012:Types of democracy
5907:Political spectrum
5520:Legislative bodies
5475:Head of government
5400:Banking regulation
4960:Federal government
4950:Central government
4229:www.lawteacher.net
4065:on 16 October 2020
4059:EveryCRSReport.com
4031:on 31 October 2020
3972:on 16 October 2020
3966:EveryCRSReport.com
3929:on 24 January 2015
3712:"issue preclusion"
3623:Thomas R. Morris,
3534:on 31 August 2012.
3512:The New York Times
3155:on 17 October 2016
3060:on 25 October 2012
3000:Appellate Advocate
2912:vertical precedent
2885:, page 371 (1999).
2818:10.1111/lest.12049
2710:Memorandum opinion
2202:Practice Statement
2128:Payne v. Tennessee
2101:Smith v. Allwright
2022:Smith v. Allwright
2002:Payne v. Tennessee
1990:Taylor v. Sturgell
1982:Vasquez v. Hillery
1974:Payne v. Tennessee
1896:Vasquez v. Hillery
1872:judicial decisions
1674:Court formulations
1202:, claim preclusion
971:systems, as under
910:The New York Times
524:Vertical precedent
8374:
8373:
8034:Constitutionalism
7956:Law and economics
7794:Act of parliament
7532:Product liability
7485:Legal archaeology
7410:Environmental law
7404:Entertainment law
7244:International law
7144:
7143:
7138:
7137:
6965:Public university
6945:Public open space
6890:Drinking fountain
6850:Telecommunication
6608:
6607:
6556:Health ministries
6551:Forest ministries
6546:Foreign ministers
6541:Finance ministers
6521:Defence ministers
6442:Ministry of women
6397:Regional minister
6279:natural resources
6253:Industry minister
6238:Commerce minister
6203:Interior minister
6179:foreign affairs /
6153:Minister of state
6029:
6028:
6025:
6024:
6017:Political parties
5896:Political culture
5821:International law
5792:
5791:
5784:U.S. Constitution
5733:
5732:
5715:Political science
5694:
5693:
5666:Political parties
5627:
5626:
5553:
5552:
5269:Constitutionalism
4980:County government
4855:Freedom of speech
4729:Library resources
4320:"The Golden Rule"
4188:978-94-007-7950-1
3764:978-94-007-7950-1
3487:Notre Dame L. Rev
3252:. 7 November 2014
3079:People v. Leonard
2629:) is that if the
2420:binding precedent
2123:Thurgood Marshall
2119:William Rehnquist
2057:Arizona v. Rumsey
2047:plurality opinion
1669:Critical analysis
1588:, and the law of
1582:South-African law
1572:systems, such as
1439:Civil law systems
1400:
1399:
1392:
1314:binding authority
1150:diversity actions
1105:product liability
1066:Secondary sources
999:Horizontal courts
934:binding precedent
799:England and Wales
671:binding authority
659:binding precedent
647:Binding precedent
532:court system has
141:
140:
133:
115:
16:(Redirected from
8432:
8349:
8348:
8347:
8335:
8334:
8158:Question of fact
8039:Criminal justice
7369:Construction law
7364:Conflict of laws
7329:Agricultural law
7171:
7164:
7157:
7148:
7147:
7126:
7125:
7114:
7113:
7025:Social insurance
6872:Waste management
6840:Electric utility
6817:Public transport
6734:Public ownership
6653:Municipalization
6635:
6628:
6621:
6612:
6611:
6598:
6597:
6587:
6586:
6407:Tourism minister
6368:Housing minister
6329:Culture minister
6056:
6049:
6042:
6033:
6032:
6000:
5999:
5988:
5984:World government
5982:
5977:
5971:
5966:
5960:
5955:
5949:
5944:
5938:
5933:
5927:
5922:
5916:
5911:
5905:
5900:
5894:
5889:
5883:
5831:World government
5742:
5741:
5703:
5702:
5686:Environmentalism
5636:
5635:
5564:
5563:
5438:
5437:
5375:Public education
5355:Social insurance
5289:Environmentalism
5259:Communitarianism
5234:Authoritarianism
5196:Direct Democracy
4975:Local government
4910:
4903:
4896:
4887:
4886:
4874:
4873:
4865:
4864:
4853:
4852:
4851:
4841:
4840:
4839:
4829:
4828:
4817:
4816:
4815:
4805:
4804:
4803:
4793:
4792:
4784:
4768:
4756:
4716:
4715:
4713:
4711:
4697:
4691:
4690:
4680:
4671:
4665:
4664:
4663:on 1 March 2017.
4662:
4647:
4638:
4632:
4631:
4613:
4607:
4606:
4604:
4602:
4579:
4573:
4572:
4570:
4568:
4545:
4539:
4538:
4507:
4501:
4500:
4494:
4489:
4487:
4479:
4472:Ringel, Jonathan
4468:
4462:
4451:Thomas, Clarence
4448:
4442:
4436:
4430:
4429:
4427:
4425:
4410:
4404:
4395:
4389:
4368:
4362:
4361:
4359:
4357:
4346:
4340:
4339:
4337:
4335:
4330:on 29 March 2018
4316:
4310:
4309:
4307:
4305:
4294:
4288:
4273:
4267:
4266:
4246:
4240:
4239:
4237:
4235:
4221:
4215:
4214:
4212:
4210:
4200:
4194:
4192:
4170:
4161:
4154:
4148:
4147:
4145:
4143:
4132:
4126:
4112:
4106:
4100:
4094:
4081:
4075:
4074:
4072:
4070:
4061:. Archived from
4047:
4041:
4040:
4038:
4036:
4027:. Archived from
4013:
4007:
4006:
4004:
4002:
3991:
3982:
3981:
3979:
3977:
3968:. Archived from
3954:
3939:
3938:
3936:
3934:
3928:
3921:
3910:
3904:
3887:
3881:
3875:
3869:
3868:
3863:
3861:
3851:
3839:
3833:
3832:
3804:
3798:
3792:
3786:
3776:
3770:
3768:
3746:
3740:
3733:
3727:
3726:
3724:
3722:
3708:
3702:
3701:
3699:
3697:
3683:
3677:
3676:
3674:
3672:
3657:
3651:
3647:
3641:
3634:
3628:
3621:
3604:
3596:
3590:
3583:
3574:
3567:
3561:
3560:
3558:
3556:
3542:
3536:
3535:
3523:
3517:
3516:
3502:
3474:
3468:
3467:
3458:Buckley v. Valeo
3451:
3445:
3444:
3418:
3409:
3403:
3402:
3400:
3385:
3376:
3370:
3369:
3367:
3365:
3351:
3345:
3344:
3342:
3340:
3327:
3318:
3309:
3306:
3300:
3298:
3293:
3287:
3286:
3284:
3282:
3268:
3262:
3261:
3259:
3257:
3242:
3236:
3234:
3216:
3210:
3209:
3207:
3205:
3190:
3184:
3183:
3171:
3165:
3164:
3162:
3160:
3154:
3148:. Archived from
3143:
3134:
3128:
3123:
3117:
3116:
3114:
3112:
3101:Texas Law Review
3092:
3086:
3076:
3070:
3069:
3067:
3065:
3050:
3044:
3043:
3041:
3039:
3025:
3019:
3009:
3003:
2992:
2986:
2985:
2979:
2971:
2969:
2967:
2961:
2955:. Archived from
2954:
2946:
2940:
2937:
2899:
2886:
2877:
2868:
2867:
2865:
2863:
2849:
2838:
2837:
2803:
2794:
2788:
2782:
2776:
2775:
2773:
2771:
2757:
2725:Question of fact
2689:Law of Citations
2684:First impression
2537:
2399:separate article
2180:UK Supreme Court
2105:
1687:
1542:HĂśgsta domstolen
1530:Nordic countries
1480:The doctrine of
1471:Council of State
1433:legal positivism
1395:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1375:
1372:reliably sourced
1352:
1351:
1344:
1269:Splits, tensions
1244:issue preclusion
1221:claim preclusion
1174:Federal Appendix
822:conflict of laws
593:court of appeals
538:appellate courts
499:first impression
436:starting in the
348:
347:
344:
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
323:
322:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
297:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
252:legal positivism
136:
129:
125:
122:
116:
114:
73:
49:
41:
21:
8440:
8439:
8435:
8434:
8433:
8431:
8430:
8429:
8410:Legal reasoning
8380:
8379:
8377:
8375:
8370:
8343:
8329:
8320:
8297:
8288:Political party
8261:Legal education
8249:Law enforcement
8229:Court of equity
8187:
8163:Question of law
8116:Practice of law
8096:Judicial review
8010:
7961:Legal formalism
7941:Comparative law
7936:Contract theory
7919:
7839:Legal pluralism
7810:
7799:Act of Congress
7723:Executive order
7689:
7591:
7510:Nationality law
7435:Immigration law
7359:Competition law
7312:
7180:
7175:
7145:
7140:
7139:
7134:
7102:
7088:Public security
7078:Public offering
7046:
7035:Social security
6985:Social services
6979:
6935:Public hospital
6930:Public computer
6925:Public bookcase
6876:
6826:
6795:Law enforcement
6790:Fire department
6773:
6724:Public interest
6667:
6663:Progressive tax
6658:Nationalization
6644:
6642:Public services
6639:
6609:
6604:
6575:
6491:Prime ministers
6486:Vice presidents
6469:
6453:
6351:Health minister
6317:
6286:Energy minister
6278:
6272:
6230:
6224:
6180:
6178:
6172:
6158:Deputy minister
6136:
6070:
6060:
6030:
6021:
5991:
5986:
5980:
5975:
5969:
5964:
5962:Western culture
5958:
5953:
5947:
5942:
5936:
5931:
5925:
5920:
5914:
5909:
5903:
5898:
5892:
5887:
5881:
5850:
5788:
5729:
5710:Fields of study
5690:
5671:Advocacy groups
5623:
5559:
5549:
5429:
5425:Street cleaning
5405:Food inspection
5360:Law enforcement
5343:
5212:
5146:Totalitarianism
4999:
4923:
4914:
4879:
4871:
4859:
4849:
4847:
4837:
4835:
4823:
4813:
4811:
4801:
4799:
4787:
4779:
4749:
4748:
4747:
4737:
4736:
4732:
4725:
4720:
4719:
4709:
4707:
4699:
4698:
4694:
4678:
4672:
4668:
4660:
4645:
4639:
4635:
4628:
4614:
4610:
4600:
4598:
4596:
4580:
4576:
4566:
4564:
4562:
4546:
4542:
4527:10.2307/1073894
4508:
4504:
4492:
4490:
4481:
4480:
4469:
4465:
4449:
4445:
4437:
4433:
4423:
4421:
4412:
4411:
4407:
4396:
4392:
4369:
4365:
4355:
4353:
4348:
4347:
4343:
4333:
4331:
4318:
4317:
4313:
4303:
4301:
4296:
4295:
4291:
4274:
4270:
4263:
4247:
4243:
4233:
4231:
4223:
4222:
4218:
4208:
4206:
4202:
4201:
4197:
4189:
4171:
4164:
4155:
4151:
4141:
4139:
4134:
4133:
4129:
4123:Wayback Machine
4113:
4109:
4101:
4097:
4082:
4078:
4068:
4066:
4048:
4044:
4034:
4032:
4015:
4014:
4010:
4000:
3998:
3993:
3992:
3985:
3975:
3973:
3955:
3942:
3932:
3930:
3926:
3919:
3911:
3907:
3894:Social Networks
3890:James H. Fowler
3888:
3884:
3876:
3872:
3859:
3857:
3849:
3840:
3836:
3806:
3805:
3801:
3793:
3789:
3777:
3773:
3765:
3747:
3743:
3735:Brian A. Blum,
3734:
3730:
3720:
3718:
3710:
3709:
3705:
3695:
3693:
3685:
3684:
3680:
3670:
3668:
3658:
3654:
3648:
3644:
3635:
3631:
3622:
3607:
3597:
3593:
3584:
3577:
3568:
3564:
3554:
3552:
3546:"stare decisis"
3544:
3543:
3539:
3524:
3520:
3475:
3471:
3452:
3448:
3427:(2): 249â307 .
3416:
3410:
3406:
3401:on 4 July 2007.
3398:
3383:
3377:
3373:
3363:
3361:
3353:
3352:
3348:
3338:
3336:
3325:
3319:
3312:
3307:
3303:
3296:
3294:
3290:
3280:
3278:
3270:
3269:
3265:
3255:
3253:
3250:www.justice.gov
3244:
3243:
3239:
3231:
3217:
3213:
3203:
3201:
3191:
3187:
3172:
3168:
3158:
3156:
3152:
3146:m.reedsmith.com
3141:
3135:
3131:
3124:
3120:
3110:
3108:
3093:
3089:
3077:
3073:
3063:
3061:
3052:
3051:
3047:
3037:
3035:
3027:
3026:
3022:
3010:
3006:
2993:
2989:
2973:
2972:
2965:
2963:
2959:
2952:
2950:"Archived copy"
2948:
2947:
2943:
2938:
2935:
2900:
2889:
2878:
2871:
2861:
2859:
2853:"stare decisis"
2851:
2850:
2841:
2801:
2795:
2791:
2783:
2779:
2769:
2767:
2759:
2758:
2754:
2749:
2744:
2735:Ratio decidendi
2691:(Roman concept)
2654:
2623:
2572:
2564:
2543:Clarence Thomas
2538:
2536:
2521:Clarence Thomas
2512:; whenever the
2466:
2428:
2416:
2407:
2356:
2283:
2274:
2268:
2259:
2242:Anderton v Ryan
2227:Anderton v Ryan
2172:
2160:
2106:
2098:
2070:applies to the
1868:
1793:
1788:
1772:
1683:
1676:
1671:
1665:jurisdictions.
1619:
1566:
1515:ratio decidendi
1504:ratio decidendi
1499:ratio decidendi
1490:ratio decidendi
1467:Cassation Court
1441:
1414:ratio decidendi
1396:
1385:
1379:
1376:
1365:
1357:This section's
1353:
1349:
1342:
1302:
1297:
1288:
1279:
1271:
1263:law of the case
1258:
1256:Law of the case
1252:
1250:Law of the case
1235:
1229:
1210:
1204:
1192:
1165:
1159:
1095:
1082:
1073:
1068:
1042:
1030:ratio decidendi
1016:
1005:appellate court
1001:
985:
923:
858:
795:
787:legal certainty
729:legal principle
655:
653:Law of the case
649:
644:
611:
578:
536:, intermediate
526:
521:
507:ratio decidendi
430:Court of Appeal
428:, later of the
424:, first of the
402:Court of Appeal
378:
325:
298:
278:
274:
268:
256:judicial review
137:
126:
120:
117:
74:
72:
62:
50:
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
8438:
8428:
8427:
8422:
8420:Sources of law
8417:
8412:
8407:
8402:
8400:Legal citation
8397:
8392:
8372:
8371:
8369:
8368:
8361:
8354:
8340:
8337:Law portal
8325:
8322:
8321:
8319:
8318:
8317:
8316:
8305:
8303:
8299:
8298:
8296:
8295:
8290:
8285:
8280:
8275:
8270:
8269:
8268:
8258:
8257:
8256:
8246:
8241:
8236:
8231:
8226:
8221:
8216:
8211:
8206:
8201:
8195:
8193:
8189:
8188:
8186:
8185:
8180:
8175:
8173:Trial advocacy
8170:
8165:
8160:
8155:
8154:
8153:
8148:
8143:
8138:
8133:
8128:
8123:
8113:
8108:
8103:
8098:
8093:
8088:
8087:
8086:
8081:
8071:
8066:
8061:
8056:
8051:
8046:
8041:
8036:
8031:
8026:
8020:
8018:
8012:
8011:
8009:
8008:
8003:
7998:
7993:
7988:
7983:
7978:
7973:
7968:
7963:
7958:
7953:
7948:
7943:
7938:
7933:
7927:
7925:
7921:
7920:
7918:
7917:
7912:
7907:
7902:
7897:
7896:
7895:
7885:
7884:
7883:
7878:
7873:
7868:
7863:
7858:
7857:
7856:
7841:
7836:
7831:
7826:
7820:
7818:
7812:
7811:
7809:
7808:
7803:
7802:
7801:
7796:
7791:
7781:
7780:
7779:
7769:
7764:
7759:
7754:
7753:
7752:
7747:
7742:
7732:
7731:
7730:
7725:
7720:
7710:
7705:
7703:Ballot measure
7699:
7697:
7691:
7690:
7688:
7687:
7682:
7680:Legal treatise
7677:
7676:
7675:
7670:
7660:
7659:
7658:
7648:
7646:Letters patent
7643:
7638:
7637:
7636:
7626:
7621:
7616:
7607:
7601:
7599:
7597:Sources of law
7593:
7592:
7590:
7589:
7584:
7582:Unenforced law
7579:
7574:
7569:
7564:
7559:
7554:
7549:
7544:
7539:
7534:
7529:
7528:
7527:
7522:
7512:
7507:
7502:
7497:
7492:
7487:
7482:
7477:
7472:
7467:
7462:
7457:
7452:
7447:
7442:
7437:
7432:
7427:
7422:
7417:
7412:
7407:
7401:
7396:
7391:
7386:
7381:
7376:
7371:
7366:
7361:
7356:
7354:Commercial law
7351:
7346:
7341:
7336:
7331:
7326:
7320:
7318:
7314:
7313:
7311:
7310:
7305:
7300:
7295:
7294:
7293:
7283:
7278:
7273:
7272:
7271:
7266:
7256:
7251:
7246:
7241:
7236:
7231:
7226:
7221:
7220:
7219:
7209:
7204:
7199:
7194:
7188:
7186:
7182:
7181:
7174:
7173:
7166:
7159:
7151:
7142:
7141:
7136:
7135:
7133:
7132:
7120:
7107:
7104:
7103:
7101:
7100:
7095:
7090:
7085:
7080:
7075:
7073:Public holiday
7070:
7065:
7060:
7054:
7052:
7048:
7047:
7045:
7044:
7042:Youth services
7039:
7038:
7037:
7032:
7030:Social pension
7022:
7021:
7020:
7010:
7005:
7000:
6998:Public housing
6995:
6989:
6987:
6981:
6980:
6978:
6977:
6972:
6967:
6962:
6957:
6952:
6947:
6942:
6940:Public library
6937:
6932:
6927:
6922:
6917:
6912:
6907:
6905:Infrastructure
6902:
6900:Free education
6897:
6892:
6886:
6884:
6878:
6877:
6875:
6874:
6869:
6864:
6859:
6858:
6857:
6847:
6842:
6836:
6834:
6832:Public utility
6828:
6827:
6825:
6824:
6819:
6814:
6809:
6808:
6807:
6805:Savings system
6800:Postal service
6797:
6792:
6787:
6781:
6779:
6778:Basic services
6775:
6774:
6772:
6771:
6766:
6761:
6756:
6751:
6746:
6741:
6736:
6731:
6726:
6721:
6716:
6711:
6706:
6701:
6696:
6694:Product sample
6691:
6689:Free newspaper
6686:
6681:
6675:
6673:
6669:
6668:
6666:
6665:
6660:
6655:
6649:
6646:
6645:
6638:
6637:
6630:
6623:
6615:
6606:
6605:
6603:
6602:
6592:
6580:
6577:
6576:
6574:
6573:
6568:
6563:
6553:
6548:
6543:
6538:
6533:
6528:
6523:
6518:
6513:
6508:
6503:
6498:
6493:
6488:
6483:
6477:
6475:
6471:
6470:
6468:
6467:
6461:
6459:
6455:
6454:
6452:
6451:
6450:
6449:
6439:
6434:
6429:
6424:
6419:
6414:
6409:
6404:
6399:
6394:
6393:
6392:
6382:
6377:
6376:
6375:
6365:
6360:
6359:
6358:
6348:
6343:
6338:
6337:
6336:
6325:
6323:
6319:
6318:
6316:
6315:
6310:
6305:
6300:
6295:
6294:
6293:
6282:
6280:
6277:Environment /
6274:
6273:
6271:
6270:
6265:
6260:
6255:
6250:
6245:
6240:
6234:
6232:
6231:infrastructure
6226:
6225:
6223:
6222:
6217:
6212:
6211:
6210:
6200:
6195:
6190:
6184:
6182:
6174:
6173:
6171:
6170:
6165:
6163:Undersecretary
6160:
6155:
6150:
6144:
6142:
6138:
6137:
6135:
6134:
6129:
6124:
6119:
6114:
6109:
6104:
6102:First minister
6099:
6094:
6092:Prime minister
6089:
6087:Vice president
6084:
6078:
6076:
6072:
6071:
6059:
6058:
6051:
6044:
6036:
6027:
6026:
6023:
6022:
6020:
6019:
6014:
6009:
6003:
5997:
5993:
5992:
5990:
5989:
5978:
5967:
5956:
5945:
5934:
5923:
5912:
5901:
5890:
5879:
5874:
5869:
5864:
5858:
5856:
5852:
5851:
5849:
5848:
5843:
5841:European Union
5838:
5836:United Nations
5833:
5828:
5823:
5818:
5813:
5808:
5800:
5798:
5794:
5793:
5790:
5789:
5787:
5786:
5781:
5776:
5771:
5766:
5761:
5756:
5751:
5745:
5739:
5735:
5734:
5731:
5730:
5728:
5727:
5722:
5720:Urban planning
5717:
5712:
5706:
5700:
5696:
5695:
5692:
5691:
5689:
5688:
5683:
5678:
5673:
5668:
5663:
5658:
5653:
5648:
5639:
5633:
5629:
5628:
5625:
5624:
5622:
5621:
5616:
5608:
5603:
5598:
5593:
5588:
5583:
5578:
5573:
5567:
5561:
5555:
5554:
5551:
5550:
5548:
5547:
5542:
5537:
5532:
5527:
5522:
5517:
5512:
5507:
5502:
5497:
5492:
5490:Prime minister
5487:
5482:
5477:
5472:
5467:
5462:
5457:
5452:
5447:
5441:
5435:
5431:
5430:
5428:
5427:
5422:
5417:
5415:Traffic lights
5412:
5407:
5402:
5397:
5392:
5387:
5382:
5377:
5372:
5367:
5362:
5357:
5351:
5349:
5345:
5344:
5342:
5341:
5336:
5334:Theoreticians:
5331:
5326:
5321:
5319:Fundamentalism
5316:
5311:
5306:
5301:
5296:
5291:
5286:
5284:Egalitarianism
5281:
5276:
5271:
5266:
5261:
5256:
5251:
5246:
5241:
5236:
5231:
5226:
5220:
5218:
5214:
5213:
5211:
5210:
5209:
5208:
5203:
5198:
5193:
5188:
5183:
5178:
5173:
5163:
5158:
5149:
5148:
5143:
5138:
5133:
5128:
5123:
5118:
5113:
5108:
5103:
5098:
5093:
5088:
5083:
5078:
5073:
5068:
5063:
5058:
5053:
5048:
5043:
5038:
5033:
5028:
5023:
5018:
5013:
5007:
5005:
5001:
5000:
4998:
4997:
4992:
4987:
4982:
4977:
4972:
4967:
4962:
4957:
4952:
4947:
4942:
4937:
4931:
4929:
4925:
4924:
4913:
4912:
4905:
4898:
4890:
4884:
4881:
4880:
4870:
4869:
4857:
4845:
4833:
4821:
4809:
4797:
4777:
4776:
4762:
4746:
4745:
4739:
4738:
4727:
4726:
4724:
4723:External links
4721:
4718:
4717:
4692:
4666:
4633:
4626:
4608:
4594:
4574:
4560:
4540:
4502:
4493:|journal=
4463:
4443:
4431:
4405:
4390:
4363:
4341:
4311:
4289:
4268:
4261:
4241:
4216:
4195:
4187:
4162:
4149:
4127:
4107:
4095:
4076:
4042:
4008:
3983:
3940:
3913:Hasnas, John.
3905:
3882:
3870:
3843:Hodge, Patrick
3834:
3799:
3787:
3771:
3763:
3741:
3728:
3703:
3678:
3660:Shafer, John.
3652:
3650:government.â).
3642:
3629:
3605:
3591:
3575:
3562:
3537:
3518:
3469:
3446:
3433:10.1086/466868
3404:
3371:
3346:
3310:
3301:
3288:
3263:
3237:
3229:
3211:
3185:
3176:S. Cal. L. Rev
3166:
3129:
3118:
3087:
3071:
3045:
3020:
3016:57 Cal. 2d 450
3004:
3002:(Winter 2012).
2987:
2941:
2933:
2887:
2869:
2839:
2812:(1): 142â164.
2789:
2777:
2765:Dictionary.com
2751:
2750:
2748:
2745:
2743:
2742:
2737:
2732:
2727:
2722:
2720:Precedent book
2717:
2712:
2707:
2702:
2697:
2692:
2686:
2681:
2676:
2671:
2666:
2661:
2655:
2653:
2650:
2622:
2619:
2603:
2602:
2601:jurisdictions.
2598:
2576:Jeremy Bentham
2571:
2568:
2563:
2560:
2534:
2525:Strom Thurmond
2506:Constitutional
2490:Antonin Scalia
2465:
2462:
2427:
2424:
2415:
2412:
2406:
2403:
2394:
2393:
2382:
2371:
2355:
2352:
2323:Adler v George
2282:
2279:
2270:Main article:
2267:
2264:
2258:
2255:
2176:House of Lords
2171:
2168:
2159:
2156:
2096:
2065:
2064:
2054:
2038:
2026:
2018:
2010:
1998:
1986:
1978:
1970:
1964:
1948:
1932:
1867:
1864:
1835:
1834:
1827:
1824:
1821:
1818:
1815:
1812:
1795:Early English
1792:
1789:
1787:
1784:
1780:network theory
1771:
1770:Academic study
1768:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1637:Recueil Dalloz
1618:
1615:
1565:
1562:
1440:
1437:
1398:
1397:
1356:
1354:
1347:
1341:
1338:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1287:
1284:
1278:
1275:
1270:
1267:
1254:Main article:
1251:
1248:
1231:Main article:
1228:
1225:
1206:Main article:
1203:
1197:
1191:
1185:
1161:Main article:
1158:
1155:
1094:
1091:
1081:
1078:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1041:
1038:
1015:
1009:
1000:
997:
989:district court
984:
981:
922:
919:
869:Richard Posner
857:
850:
818:
817:
814:
794:
791:
648:
645:
643:
640:
636:forum shopping
632:
631:
627:
610:
607:
577:
574:
525:
522:
520:
517:
467:Law Commission
377:
374:
366:
365:
362:
267:
264:
244:
243:
237:
231:
223:
192:regulatory law
139:
138:
53:
51:
44:
26:
18:Judge-made law
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
8437:
8426:
8423:
8421:
8418:
8416:
8413:
8411:
8408:
8406:
8403:
8401:
8398:
8396:
8393:
8391:
8388:
8387:
8385:
8378:
8367:
8366:
8362:
8360:
8359:
8355:
8353:
8352:
8341:
8339:
8338:
8333:
8327:
8326:
8323:
8315:
8312:
8311:
8310:
8307:
8306:
8304:
8300:
8294:
8291:
8289:
8286:
8284:
8281:
8279:
8276:
8274:
8271:
8267:
8264:
8263:
8262:
8259:
8255:
8252:
8251:
8250:
8247:
8245:
8242:
8240:
8237:
8235:
8232:
8230:
8227:
8225:
8222:
8220:
8219:Civil society
8217:
8215:
8212:
8210:
8207:
8205:
8202:
8200:
8197:
8196:
8194:
8190:
8184:
8181:
8179:
8178:Trier of fact
8176:
8174:
8171:
8169:
8166:
8164:
8161:
8159:
8156:
8152:
8149:
8147:
8144:
8142:
8139:
8137:
8134:
8132:
8129:
8127:
8124:
8122:
8119:
8118:
8117:
8114:
8112:
8109:
8107:
8104:
8102:
8099:
8097:
8094:
8092:
8089:
8085:
8082:
8080:
8077:
8076:
8075:
8072:
8070:
8067:
8065:
8064:Legal opinion
8062:
8060:
8057:
8055:
8052:
8050:
8047:
8045:
8044:Court-martial
8042:
8040:
8037:
8035:
8032:
8030:
8027:
8025:
8022:
8021:
8019:
8017:
8016:Jurisprudence
8013:
8007:
8004:
8002:
7999:
7997:
7994:
7992:
7989:
7987:
7984:
7982:
7979:
7977:
7974:
7972:
7969:
7967:
7964:
7962:
7959:
7957:
7954:
7952:
7949:
7947:
7944:
7942:
7939:
7937:
7934:
7932:
7929:
7928:
7926:
7922:
7916:
7913:
7911:
7908:
7906:
7905:Statutory law
7903:
7901:
7900:Socialist law
7898:
7894:
7893:Byzantine law
7891:
7890:
7889:
7886:
7882:
7879:
7877:
7874:
7872:
7869:
7867:
7864:
7862:
7859:
7855:
7852:
7851:
7850:
7847:
7846:
7845:
7844:Religious law
7842:
7840:
7837:
7835:
7832:
7830:
7827:
7825:
7822:
7821:
7819:
7817:
7816:Legal systems
7813:
7807:
7804:
7800:
7797:
7795:
7792:
7790:
7787:
7786:
7785:
7784:Statutory law
7782:
7778:
7775:
7774:
7773:
7770:
7768:
7765:
7763:
7760:
7758:
7755:
7751:
7748:
7746:
7743:
7741:
7738:
7737:
7736:
7733:
7729:
7726:
7724:
7721:
7719:
7716:
7715:
7714:
7711:
7709:
7706:
7704:
7701:
7700:
7698:
7696:
7692:
7686:
7683:
7681:
7678:
7674:
7671:
7669:
7666:
7665:
7664:
7661:
7657:
7654:
7653:
7652:
7649:
7647:
7644:
7642:
7639:
7635:
7632:
7631:
7630:
7627:
7625:
7622:
7620:
7617:
7615:
7614:Statutory law
7611:
7608:
7606:
7603:
7602:
7600:
7598:
7594:
7588:
7585:
7583:
7580:
7578:
7575:
7573:
7572:Transport law
7570:
7568:
7565:
7563:
7560:
7558:
7555:
7553:
7550:
7548:
7545:
7543:
7540:
7538:
7535:
7533:
7530:
7526:
7523:
7521:
7518:
7517:
7516:
7513:
7511:
7508:
7506:
7503:
7501:
7498:
7496:
7493:
7491:
7490:Legal fiction
7488:
7486:
7483:
7481:
7478:
7476:
7473:
7471:
7468:
7466:
7463:
7461:
7458:
7456:
7453:
7451:
7448:
7446:
7443:
7441:
7438:
7436:
7433:
7431:
7428:
7426:
7423:
7421:
7420:Financial law
7418:
7416:
7413:
7411:
7408:
7405:
7402:
7400:
7397:
7395:
7392:
7390:
7387:
7385:
7382:
7380:
7379:Corporate law
7377:
7375:
7372:
7370:
7367:
7365:
7362:
7360:
7357:
7355:
7352:
7350:
7347:
7345:
7342:
7340:
7337:
7335:
7332:
7330:
7327:
7325:
7322:
7321:
7319:
7315:
7309:
7306:
7304:
7303:Statutory law
7301:
7299:
7296:
7292:
7289:
7288:
7287:
7284:
7282:
7279:
7277:
7274:
7270:
7267:
7265:
7262:
7261:
7260:
7257:
7255:
7252:
7250:
7247:
7245:
7242:
7240:
7237:
7235:
7232:
7230:
7227:
7225:
7222:
7218:
7215:
7214:
7213:
7210:
7208:
7205:
7203:
7200:
7198:
7195:
7193:
7190:
7189:
7187:
7185:Core subjects
7183:
7179:
7172:
7167:
7165:
7160:
7158:
7153:
7152:
7149:
7131:
7130:
7121:
7119:
7118:
7109:
7108:
7105:
7099:
7096:
7094:
7091:
7089:
7086:
7084:
7083:Public sector
7081:
7079:
7076:
7074:
7071:
7069:
7066:
7064:
7061:
7059:
7056:
7055:
7053:
7049:
7043:
7040:
7036:
7033:
7031:
7028:
7027:
7026:
7023:
7019:
7016:
7015:
7014:
7011:
7009:
7008:Job guarantee
7006:
7004:
7001:
6999:
6996:
6994:
6991:
6990:
6988:
6986:
6982:
6976:
6973:
6971:
6968:
6966:
6963:
6961:
6960:Public toilet
6958:
6956:
6953:
6951:
6950:Public school
6948:
6946:
6943:
6941:
6938:
6936:
6933:
6931:
6928:
6926:
6923:
6921:
6918:
6916:
6913:
6911:
6908:
6906:
6903:
6901:
6898:
6896:
6893:
6891:
6888:
6887:
6885:
6883:
6879:
6873:
6870:
6868:
6865:
6863:
6860:
6856:
6853:
6852:
6851:
6848:
6846:
6845:Oil & gas
6843:
6841:
6838:
6837:
6835:
6833:
6829:
6823:
6820:
6818:
6815:
6813:
6810:
6806:
6803:
6802:
6801:
6798:
6796:
6793:
6791:
6788:
6786:
6785:Civil service
6783:
6782:
6780:
6776:
6770:
6767:
6765:
6762:
6760:
6757:
6755:
6752:
6750:
6747:
6745:
6744:Public rights
6742:
6740:
6739:Public policy
6737:
6735:
6732:
6730:
6727:
6725:
6722:
6720:
6719:Public health
6717:
6715:
6712:
6710:
6709:Public domain
6707:
6705:
6702:
6700:
6697:
6695:
6692:
6690:
6687:
6685:
6682:
6680:
6677:
6676:
6674:
6670:
6664:
6661:
6659:
6656:
6654:
6651:
6650:
6647:
6643:
6636:
6631:
6629:
6624:
6622:
6617:
6616:
6613:
6601:
6593:
6591:
6582:
6581:
6578:
6572:
6569:
6567:
6564:
6561:
6560:mental health
6557:
6554:
6552:
6549:
6547:
6544:
6542:
6539:
6537:
6534:
6532:
6529:
6527:
6524:
6522:
6519:
6517:
6514:
6512:
6509:
6507:
6504:
6502:
6499:
6497:
6494:
6492:
6489:
6487:
6484:
6482:
6479:
6478:
6476:
6472:
6466:
6463:
6462:
6460:
6456:
6448:
6445:
6444:
6443:
6440:
6438:
6435:
6433:
6430:
6428:
6425:
6423:
6420:
6418:
6415:
6413:
6410:
6408:
6405:
6403:
6400:
6398:
6395:
6391:
6388:
6387:
6386:
6383:
6381:
6378:
6374:
6371:
6370:
6369:
6366:
6364:
6361:
6357:
6354:
6353:
6352:
6349:
6347:
6344:
6342:
6339:
6335:
6332:
6331:
6330:
6327:
6326:
6324:
6320:
6314:
6311:
6309:
6306:
6304:
6301:
6299:
6296:
6292:
6289:
6288:
6287:
6284:
6283:
6281:
6275:
6269:
6266:
6264:
6261:
6259:
6256:
6254:
6251:
6249:
6246:
6244:
6241:
6239:
6236:
6235:
6233:
6227:
6221:
6218:
6216:
6213:
6209:
6206:
6205:
6204:
6201:
6199:
6196:
6194:
6191:
6189:
6186:
6185:
6183:
6181:public safety
6175:
6169:
6166:
6164:
6161:
6159:
6156:
6154:
6151:
6149:
6146:
6145:
6143:
6139:
6133:
6130:
6128:
6125:
6123:
6120:
6118:
6115:
6113:
6110:
6108:
6105:
6103:
6100:
6098:
6095:
6093:
6090:
6088:
6085:
6083:
6080:
6079:
6077:
6073:
6069:
6065:
6057:
6052:
6050:
6045:
6043:
6038:
6037:
6034:
6018:
6015:
6013:
6010:
6008:
6005:
6004:
6001:
5998:
5994:
5985:
5979:
5974:
5968:
5963:
5957:
5952:
5946:
5941:
5935:
5930:
5924:
5919:
5913:
5908:
5902:
5897:
5891:
5886:
5880:
5878:
5875:
5873:
5870:
5868:
5865:
5863:
5862:Human history
5860:
5859:
5857:
5853:
5847:
5844:
5842:
5839:
5837:
5834:
5832:
5829:
5827:
5824:
5822:
5819:
5817:
5814:
5812:
5809:
5807:
5806:
5802:
5801:
5799:
5797:International
5795:
5785:
5782:
5780:
5777:
5775:
5772:
5770:
5767:
5765:
5762:
5760:
5757:
5755:
5752:
5750:
5747:
5746:
5743:
5740:
5736:
5726:
5723:
5721:
5718:
5716:
5713:
5711:
5708:
5707:
5704:
5701:
5697:
5687:
5684:
5682:
5679:
5677:
5674:
5672:
5669:
5667:
5664:
5662:
5659:
5657:
5654:
5652:
5649:
5647:
5645:
5641:
5640:
5637:
5634:
5630:
5620:
5617:
5615:
5613:
5609:
5607:
5604:
5602:
5599:
5597:
5594:
5592:
5589:
5587:
5584:
5582:
5579:
5577:
5574:
5572:
5569:
5568:
5565:
5562:
5556:
5546:
5543:
5541:
5538:
5536:
5533:
5531:
5528:
5526:
5523:
5521:
5518:
5516:
5513:
5511:
5508:
5506:
5503:
5501:
5498:
5496:
5493:
5491:
5488:
5486:
5483:
5481:
5478:
5476:
5473:
5471:
5470:Head of state
5468:
5466:
5463:
5461:
5458:
5456:
5453:
5451:
5448:
5446:
5443:
5442:
5439:
5436:
5432:
5426:
5423:
5421:
5418:
5416:
5413:
5411:
5408:
5406:
5403:
5401:
5398:
5396:
5393:
5391:
5388:
5386:
5383:
5381:
5378:
5376:
5373:
5371:
5368:
5366:
5363:
5361:
5358:
5356:
5353:
5352:
5350:
5346:
5340:
5337:
5335:
5332:
5330:
5329:Progressivism
5327:
5325:
5322:
5320:
5317:
5315:
5312:
5310:
5307:
5305:
5302:
5300:
5297:
5295:
5292:
5290:
5287:
5285:
5282:
5280:
5277:
5275:
5272:
5270:
5267:
5265:
5262:
5260:
5257:
5255:
5252:
5250:
5247:
5245:
5242:
5240:
5237:
5235:
5232:
5230:
5227:
5225:
5222:
5221:
5219:
5215:
5207:
5204:
5202:
5199:
5197:
5194:
5192:
5189:
5187:
5184:
5182:
5179:
5177:
5176:Collaborative
5174:
5172:
5169:
5168:
5167:
5164:
5162:
5159:
5157:
5155:
5151:
5150:
5147:
5144:
5142:
5139:
5137:
5134:
5132:
5129:
5127:
5124:
5122:
5121:Republicanism
5119:
5117:
5114:
5112:
5109:
5107:
5104:
5102:
5099:
5097:
5094:
5092:
5089:
5087:
5084:
5082:
5079:
5077:
5074:
5072:
5069:
5067:
5064:
5062:
5059:
5057:
5054:
5052:
5051:Confederation
5049:
5047:
5044:
5042:
5039:
5037:
5034:
5032:
5029:
5027:
5024:
5022:
5019:
5017:
5014:
5012:
5009:
5008:
5006:
5002:
4996:
4993:
4991:
4988:
4986:
4983:
4981:
4978:
4976:
4973:
4971:
4968:
4966:
4963:
4961:
4958:
4956:
4955:Unitary state
4953:
4951:
4948:
4946:
4943:
4941:
4938:
4936:
4933:
4932:
4930:
4926:
4922:
4918:
4911:
4906:
4904:
4899:
4897:
4892:
4891:
4888:
4882:
4875:
4868:
4863:
4858:
4856:
4846:
4844:
4834:
4832:
4827:
4822:
4820:
4810:
4808:
4798:
4796:
4791:
4786:
4785:
4782:
4775:at Wiktionary
4774:
4773:
4767:
4763:
4760:
4755:
4751:
4750:
4744:
4741:
4740:
4735:
4730:
4706:
4702:
4696:
4688:
4684:
4677:
4670:
4659:
4655:
4651:
4644:
4637:
4629:
4627:0-8203-1875-2
4623:
4619:
4612:
4597:
4595:9780198723868
4591:
4587:
4586:
4578:
4563:
4561:9781847314109
4557:
4553:
4552:
4544:
4536:
4532:
4528:
4524:
4520:
4516:
4512:
4511:Nelson, Caleb
4506:
4498:
4485:
4477:
4473:
4467:
4460:
4456:
4452:
4447:
4440:
4435:
4419:
4415:
4409:
4402:
4401:
4394:
4387:
4386:
4381:
4380:
4375:
4374:
4367:
4351:
4345:
4329:
4325:
4321:
4315:
4299:
4293:
4286:
4285:0-340-89991-3
4282:
4278:
4272:
4264:
4262:9788175348936
4258:
4254:
4253:
4245:
4230:
4226:
4220:
4205:
4199:
4190:
4184:
4180:
4176:
4169:
4167:
4159:
4153:
4137:
4131:
4124:
4120:
4117:
4111:
4104:
4099:
4092:
4088:
4087:
4080:
4064:
4060:
4056:
4052:
4046:
4030:
4026:
4022:
4018:
4012:
3996:
3990:
3988:
3971:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3953:
3951:
3949:
3947:
3945:
3925:
3918:
3917:
3909:
3903:
3899:
3895:
3891:
3886:
3879:
3874:
3867:
3855:
3848:
3844:
3838:
3830:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3814:
3811:(in German).
3810:
3803:
3796:
3791:
3784:
3780:
3775:
3766:
3760:
3756:
3752:
3745:
3738:
3732:
3717:
3713:
3707:
3692:
3688:
3682:
3667:
3663:
3656:
3646:
3638:
3633:
3626:
3620:
3618:
3616:
3614:
3612:
3610:
3601:
3595:
3588:
3582:
3580:
3572:
3566:
3551:
3547:
3541:
3533:
3529:
3522:
3514:
3513:
3508:
3500:
3496:
3492:
3488:
3484:
3482:
3473:
3465:
3461:
3459:
3450:
3442:
3438:
3434:
3430:
3426:
3422:
3415:
3408:
3397:
3393:
3389:
3382:
3375:
3360:
3356:
3350:
3335:
3331:
3330:Jura Falconis
3324:
3317:
3315:
3305:
3292:
3277:
3273:
3267:
3251:
3247:
3241:
3232:
3230:0-8299-2002-1
3226:
3222:
3215:
3200:
3196:
3189:
3181:
3177:
3170:
3151:
3147:
3140:
3133:
3127:
3122:
3106:
3102:
3098:
3091:
3084:
3080:
3075:
3059:
3055:
3049:
3034:
3033:www.uscis.gov
3030:
3024:
3017:
3013:
3008:
3001:
2997:
2991:
2983:
2977:
2962:on 1 May 2013
2958:
2951:
2945:
2932:
2929:
2928:stare decisis
2924:
2923:stare decisis
2920:
2919:
2914:
2913:
2904:
2898:
2896:
2894:
2892:
2884:
2883:
2876:
2874:
2858:
2854:
2848:
2846:
2844:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2806:Legal Studies
2800:
2793:
2786:
2781:
2766:
2762:
2756:
2752:
2741:
2738:
2736:
2733:
2731:
2728:
2726:
2723:
2721:
2718:
2716:
2713:
2711:
2708:
2706:
2703:
2701:
2698:
2696:
2695:Legal opinion
2693:
2690:
2687:
2685:
2682:
2680:
2677:
2675:
2672:
2670:
2667:
2665:
2662:
2660:
2659:Case citation
2657:
2656:
2649:
2647:
2643:
2642:stare decisis
2638:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2627:stare decisis
2618:
2616:
2611:
2608:
2607:stare decisis
2599:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2591:
2584:
2579:
2577:
2567:
2558:
2553:
2551:
2550:stare decisis
2546:
2544:
2533:
2528:
2526:
2522:
2517:
2515:
2514:plain meaning
2511:
2510:stare decisis
2507:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2494:Stare decisis
2491:
2486:
2485:stare decisis
2481:
2479:
2475:
2474:stare decisis
2470:
2461:
2459:
2458:
2453:
2452:stare decisis
2448:
2446:
2445:statutory law
2442:
2437:
2433:
2432:stare decisis
2423:
2421:
2411:
2402:
2400:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2351:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2343:Heydon's Case
2339:
2338:mischief rule
2334:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2319:
2314:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2306:Fisher v Bell
2302:
2298:
2294:
2289:
2286:
2278:
2273:
2263:
2254:
2252:
2248:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2234:
2229:
2228:
2221:
2219:
2215:
2214:
2209:
2208:
2203:
2198:
2196:
2192:
2191:stare decisis
2187:
2186:
2181:
2177:
2167:
2165:
2164:stare decisis
2155:
2153:
2152:stare decisis
2149:
2148:
2143:
2142:stare decisis
2139:
2138:
2132:
2130:
2129:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2111:
2103:
2102:
2095:
2090:
2088:
2083:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2068:Stare decisis
2062:
2061:stare decisis
2058:
2055:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2043:
2039:
2036:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2023:
2019:
2016:
2015:
2011:
2008:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1996:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1957:Sotomayor, J.
1954:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1913:
1912:Stare decisis
1909:
1908:stare decisis
1904:
1903:Stare decisis
1900:
1898:
1897:
1891:
1890:stare decisis
1886:
1885:Stare decisis
1882:
1878:
1877:stare decisis
1873:
1862:
1860:
1859:stare decisis
1856:
1852:
1848:
1842:
1840:
1839:stare decisis
1832:
1831:stare decisis
1828:
1825:
1822:
1819:
1816:
1813:
1810:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1802:
1801:stare decisis
1798:
1783:
1781:
1776:
1766:
1764:
1758:
1754:
1752:
1751:stare decisis
1748:
1747:stare decisis
1744:
1738:
1736:
1730:
1725:
1723:
1718:
1716:
1710:
1707:
1706:stare decisis
1702:
1701:Stare decisis
1698:
1697:stare decisis
1694:
1693:Stare decisis
1689:
1686:
1681:
1666:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1643:
1639:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1624:
1614:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1603:stare decisis
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1561:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1538:Supreme Court
1535:
1531:
1526:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1478:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1462:stare decisis
1459:
1455:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1444:Stare decisis
1436:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1423:, which have
1422:
1421:
1416:
1415:
1409:
1405:
1394:
1391:
1383:
1380:November 2023
1373:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1355:
1346:
1345:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1292:
1283:
1274:
1266:
1264:
1257:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1234:
1224:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1209:
1201:
1196:
1189:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1175:
1171:
1164:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1145:
1140:
1139:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1120:
1118:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1090:
1086:
1077:
1063:
1060:
1059:Supreme Court
1051:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1014:
1008:
1006:
996:
994:
990:
980:
978:
974:
970:
966:
961:
959:
958:jurisdictions
955:
950:
948:
944:
940:
935:
931:
927:
918:
916:
913:referring to
912:
911:
906:
905:Arlen Specter
902:
898:
894:
893:stare decisis
889:
887:
886:stare decisis
883:
882:
877:
876:
870:
865:
863:
862:stare decisis
855:
854:stare decisis
849:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
815:
812:
811:
810:
807:
804:
800:
790:
788:
782:
780:
776:
775:
768:
764:
760:
758:
752:
747:
744:
742:
738:
737:Stare decisis
734:
733:stare decisis
730:
725:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:legal systems
696:
692:
688:
683:
680:
676:
675:stare decisis
672:
668:
664:
661:(alternately
660:
654:
639:
637:
628:
625:
621:
620:Erie doctrine
617:
616:
615:
606:
604:
600:
599:
594:
590:
585:
583:
582:stare decisis
572:
570:
566:
562:
561:stare decisis
558:
557:stare decisis
552:
550:
545:
543:
542:supreme court
539:
535:
531:
516:
512:
509:
508:
502:
500:
494:
492:
488:
484:
478:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
458:
457:
452:
451:encyclopedias
447:
445:
444:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
417:
415:
409:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:stare decisis
391:
387:
383:
373:
371:
363:
360:
359:
358:
356:
352:
346:
272:
271:Stare decisis
263:
261:
258:practiced by
257:
253:
249:
246:In contrast,
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
228:
227:distinguished
224:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
209:
207:
203:
199:
195:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:statutory law
177:
173:
169:
165:
163:
162:
161:stare decisis
157:
153:
149:
145:
135:
132:
124:
113:
110:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
82: â
81:
77:
76:Find sources:
70:
66:
60:
59:
54:This article
52:
48:
43:
42:
37:
33:
19:
8376:
8363:
8356:
8342:
8328:
8101:Jurisdiction
8069:Legal remedy
8024:Adjudication
7924:Legal theory
7762:Ratification
7757:Promulgation
7728:Proclamation
7708:Codification
7667:
7641:Human rights
7629:Divine right
7619:Constitution
7587:Women in law
7505:Military law
7500:Marriage law
7495:Maritime law
7394:Election law
7334:Aviation law
7324:Abortion law
7276:Property law
7212:Criminal law
7127:
7115:
7068:Public float
7003:Job creation
6955:Public space
6882:Public works
6759:Public value
6754:Public trust
5987:}}
5981:{{
5976:}}
5970:{{
5965:}}
5959:{{
5954:}}
5948:{{
5943:}}
5937:{{
5932:}}
5926:{{
5921:}}
5915:{{
5910:}}
5904:{{
5899:}}
5893:{{
5888:}}
5882:{{
5876:
5872:Civilization
5825:
5803:
5773:
5763:
5748:
5709:
5681:Civil rights
5675:
5660:
5642:
5618:
5610:
5590:
5586:Town meeting
5570:
5519:
5494:
5464:
5450:Constitution
5444:
5409:
5389:
5333:
5279:Distributism
5264:Conservatism
5249:Collectivism
5217:Philosophies
5191:Cosmopolitan
5186:Conservative
5152:
5025:
5016:Govt systems
5010:
4990:Municipality
4969:
4771:
4761:at Wikiquote
4733:
4708:. Retrieved
4704:
4695:
4686:
4682:
4669:
4658:the original
4653:
4649:
4636:
4617:
4611:
4601:30 September
4599:. Retrieved
4584:
4577:
4567:29 September
4565:. Retrieved
4550:
4543:
4518:
4514:
4505:
4484:cite journal
4466:
4454:
4446:
4438:
4434:
4422:. Retrieved
4420:. March 2013
4417:
4408:
4399:
4393:
4384:
4377:
4372:
4366:
4354:. Retrieved
4344:
4332:. Retrieved
4328:the original
4323:
4314:
4302:. Retrieved
4300:. Bailii.org
4292:
4276:
4271:
4251:
4244:
4232:. Retrieved
4228:
4219:
4207:. Retrieved
4198:
4178:
4157:
4152:
4140:. Retrieved
4130:
4110:
4102:
4098:
4090:
4085:
4079:
4067:. Retrieved
4063:the original
4058:
4045:
4033:. Retrieved
4029:the original
4020:
4011:
3999:. Retrieved
3974:. Retrieved
3970:the original
3965:
3931:. Retrieved
3924:the original
3915:
3908:
3893:
3885:
3873:
3865:
3858:, retrieved
3853:
3837:
3812:
3808:
3802:
3794:
3790:
3782:
3778:
3774:
3754:
3744:
3736:
3731:
3719:. Retrieved
3715:
3706:
3694:. Retrieved
3690:
3681:
3669:. Retrieved
3665:
3655:
3645:
3636:
3632:
3624:
3599:
3598:Ian Eppler,
3594:
3586:
3565:
3553:. Retrieved
3549:
3540:
3532:the original
3521:
3510:
3493:(1): 11â32.
3490:
3486:
3480:
3472:
3463:
3457:
3449:
3424:
3420:
3407:
3396:the original
3391:
3387:
3374:
3362:. Retrieved
3358:
3349:
3337:. Retrieved
3333:
3329:
3304:
3291:
3279:. Retrieved
3275:
3266:
3254:. Retrieved
3249:
3240:
3220:
3214:
3202:. Retrieved
3198:
3188:
3179:
3175:
3169:
3157:. Retrieved
3150:the original
3145:
3132:
3121:
3109:. Retrieved
3104:
3100:
3090:
3078:
3074:
3062:. Retrieved
3058:the original
3048:
3036:. Retrieved
3032:
3023:
3011:
3007:
2999:
2990:
2964:. Retrieved
2957:the original
2944:
2936:Walton Myers
2927:
2922:
2917:
2916:
2911:
2910:
2907:
2902:
2880:
2860:. Retrieved
2856:
2809:
2805:
2792:
2784:
2780:
2768:. Retrieved
2764:
2755:
2674:Custom (law)
2641:
2639:
2626:
2624:
2615:undemocratic
2612:
2606:
2604:
2586:
2581:
2573:
2565:
2555:
2549:
2547:
2540:
2530:
2518:
2509:
2493:
2492:argue that "
2484:
2482:
2478:interpreting
2477:
2473:
2467:
2455:
2451:
2449:
2431:
2429:
2417:
2408:
2395:
2390:923 P.2d 783
2385:
2374:
2363:
2357:
2347:
2341:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2315:
2311:contract law
2304:
2300:
2297:R v Maginnis
2296:
2293:literal rule
2290:
2287:
2284:
2275:
2260:
2250:
2246:
2241:
2233:R v Shivpuri
2231:
2225:
2222:
2213:R v Caldwell
2211:
2205:
2199:
2190:
2183:
2174:The British
2173:
2163:
2161:
2151:
2145:
2141:
2135:
2133:
2126:
2114:
2112:
2108:
2099:
2092:
2086:
2084:
2076:obiter dicta
2067:
2066:
2060:
2056:
2050:
2040:
2028:
2020:
2012:
2000:
1995:tare decisis
1994:
1988:
1980:
1972:
1966:
1950:
1934:
1922:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1876:
1869:
1858:
1844:
1838:
1836:
1830:
1800:
1794:
1777:
1773:
1760:
1756:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1740:
1737:has stated:
1732:
1727:
1724:has stated:
1719:
1714:
1712:
1705:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1685:285 U.S. 393
1679:
1677:
1635:
1620:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1567:
1558:kammarrätter
1557:
1553:
1549:
1541:
1527:
1514:
1512:
1503:
1498:
1489:
1481:
1479:
1474:
1461:
1451:
1443:
1442:
1420:obiter dicta
1418:
1412:
1401:
1386:
1377:
1358:
1322:
1318:jurisdiction
1309:
1303:
1289:
1280:
1272:
1259:
1236:
1216:res judicata
1214:
1211:
1208:res judicata
1200:Res judicata
1199:
1193:
1188:Res judicata
1187:
1178:
1166:
1143:
1136:
1121:
1113:
1096:
1087:
1083:
1074:
1055:
1043:
1034:obiter dicta
1033:
1029:
1026:obiter dicta
1025:
1021:obiter dicta
1019:
1017:
1013:obiter dicta
1012:
1002:
986:
962:
951:
945:or academic
929:
925:
924:
914:
908:
901:Samuel Alito
899:and Justice
897:John Roberts
892:
890:
885:
879:
873:
866:
861:
859:
853:
819:
808:
796:
783:
772:
769:
765:
761:
754:
749:
745:
736:
732:
726:
712:in 2009. In
691:lower courts
684:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
656:
633:
612:
596:
586:
581:
579:
560:
556:
554:
546:
534:trial courts
527:
513:
505:
503:
495:
479:
475:Highway Code
460:
454:
448:
441:
437:
422:Lord Denning
418:
410:
393:
379:
367:
354:
270:
269:
245:
239:
233:
225:
219:
215:
210:
196:
166:
160:
159:
143:
142:
127:
121:January 2022
118:
108:
101:
94:
87:
75:
63:Please help
58:verification
55:
8273:Legislature
8204:Bureaucracy
8001:Rule of man
7996:Rule of law
7971:Libertarian
7834:Chinese law
7735:Legislation
7685:Regulations
7673:Law reports
7651:Natural law
7547:Reparations
7542:Refugee law
7465:Jurimetrics
7406:(Media law)
7344:Banking law
7339:Amnesty law
7317:Disciplines
7254:Private law
6920:Public bank
6895:Free clinic
6729:Public land
6679:Common good
6229:Economics /
5846:World Court
5779:Magna Carta
5596:Legislation
5558:Governance
5515:Legislature
5390:Regulation:
5299:Familialism
5274:Corporatism
5254:Communalism
5224:Agrarianism
5136:Technocracy
5096:Meritocracy
5091:Kleptocracy
5071:Ergatocracy
5066:Electocracy
5056:Colonialism
5041:Bureaucracy
5036:Aristocracy
4521:(1): 1â84.
4397:See, e.g.,
4370:See, e.g.,
4356:11 December
3466:: 195â216 .
3299:647 (2008).
3038:24 February
2770:6 September
2761:"Precedent"
2679:Distinguish
2646:minimalists
2631:legislature
2590:legal costs
2469:Originalism
2464:Originalism
2379:153 Va. 332
2318:golden rule
2251:R v Lambert
2238:Lord Bridge
1943:underlying
1941:rule of law
1929:Roberts, J.
1791:Development
1786:Application
1611:prima facie
1127:(replacing
947:law reviews
881:Roe v. Wade
824:situation,
757:distinguish
702:English law
679:lower court
202:law reports
80:"Precedent"
8384:Categories
8266:Law school
8146:Prosecutor
8084:Magistrate
7871:Jewish law
7829:Common law
7750:Rulemaking
7745:Regulation
7695:Law making
7634:Divine law
7610:Legal code
7557:Sports law
7480:Law of war
7430:Health law
7415:Family law
7399:Energy law
7349:Bankruptcy
7286:Punishment
7281:Public law
7093:Public use
6975:Urban park
6915:Public art
6704:Public bad
6481:Presidents
6177:Defence /
6075:Leadership
6068:ministries
5996:Categories
5929:liberalism
5877:Templates:
5774:Documents:
5749:Overviews:
5601:Regulation
5530:Parliament
5434:Components
5420:Sanitation
5410:Municipal:
5339:John Locke
5324:Liberalism
5304:Fanaticism
5116:Plutocracy
5086:Geniocracy
5076:Federalism
5046:Capitalism
4921:government
4878:Government
4689:: 695â740.
4650:Modern Age
4352:. Labspace
4324:Lawade.com
4142:2 November
4069:3 November
4035:3 November
4001:3 November
3976:3 November
3860:27 January
3721:20 October
3637:See, e.g.,
3603:system.â).
3571:Loud Rules
3555:10 October
3503:quoted by
3111:2 November
3064:2 November
2862:11 January
2502:common law
2441:common law
2291:Under the
2247:R v Kansal
2245:cases; in
2195:common law
2007:Scalia, J.
1961:concurring
1855:common law
1851:common law
1847:common law
1809:common law
1797:common law
1763:common law
1659:common law
1651:Blackstone
1642:common law
1627:common law
1623:professors
1598:common law
1544:) and the
1523:common law
1508:common law
1486:common law
1408:common law
1180:Litigation
1170:a reporter
1100:common law
830:erga omnes
826:jus cogens
803:common law
801:and other
774:certiorari
695:common law
651:See also:
530:common law
446:K.B. 130.
438:High Trees
398:High Court
390:common-law
382:common-law
168:Common law
148:legal case
91:newspapers
32:Precedence
8244:Judiciary
8239:Executive
8214:The bench
8151:Solicitor
8126:Barrister
8006:Sociology
7991:Pseudolaw
7931:Anarchist
7888:Roman law
7876:Parsi law
7861:Hindu law
7849:Canon law
7824:Civil law
7777:Concordat
7668:Precedent
7577:Trust law
7552:Space law
7389:Drugs law
7259:Procedure
7197:Civil law
6082:President
6064:ministers
5805:Diplomacy
5725:Sociology
5656:Campaigns
5644:Elections
5619:Precedent
5591:Outcomes:
5581:Committee
5560:processes
5510:Judiciary
5485:President
5445:Documents
5385:Espionage
5348:Functions
5294:Extremism
5229:Anarchism
5181:Consensus
5171:Cellular
5154:Democracy
5141:Theocracy
5126:Socialism
5111:Oligarchy
5081:Feudalism
5061:Communism
4928:Overviews
4772:precedent
4759:Precedent
4734:Precedent
4705:OpenLearn
3829:0033-7250
3737:Contracts
3441:154308093
2826:1748-121X
2498:civil law
1663:civil law
1594:Louisiana
1574:Scots law
1554:hovrätter
1448:civil law
1404:civil law
1368:talk page
1295:Conflicts
1135:decision
973:Scots law
969:pluralist
965:civil law
943:treatises
867:In 1976,
718:pluralist
714:civil law
667:mandatory
266:Principle
248:civil law
240:overruled
172:civil law
154:or other
144:Precedent
36:President
8390:Case law
8351:Category
8293:Tribunal
8278:Military
8121:Attorney
8091:Judgment
7951:Feminist
7866:Jain law
7663:Case law
7384:Cyberlaw
7291:Corporal
7269:Criminal
7239:Evidence
7229:Doctrine
7207:Contract
7117:Category
7051:See also
6672:Concepts
6132:Minister
5769:Suffrage
5699:Academic
5632:Politics
5571:Process:
5540:Assembly
5525:Congress
5505:Ministry
5380:Military
5314:Feminism
5239:Centrism
5206:Republic
5106:Monarchy
5026:Systems:
4995:Township
4917:Politics
4867:Monarchy
4831:Internet
4474:(2004).
4453:(1991).
4334:29 March
4304:16 March
4119:Archived
4084:Central
3896:(2007),
3671:8 August
3499:11656531
3339:21 April
2976:cite web
2934:â
2905:(2004):
2834:29507544
2652:See also
2535:â
2327:vicinity
2218:mens rea
2097:â
1881:doctrine
1632:doctrine
1578:Scotland
1475:de facto
1469:and the
1458:holdings
1429:statutes
1361:disputed
1329:holdings
1146:doctrine
1109:contract
977:case law
846:case law
722:case law
483:district
453:such as
434:estoppel
400:and the
234:modified
198:Case law
156:tribunal
8365:Outline
8302:History
8209:The bar
8183:Verdict
8131:Counsel
8111:Justice
7966:History
7789:Statute
7605:Charter
7567:Tax law
7515:Probate
7129:Commons
7058:Commons
6112:Premier
5855:Related
5811:Embassy
5764:Reforms
5738:History
5676:Issues:
5661:Groups:
5576:Hearing
5535:Council
5500:Cabinet
5495:Bodies:
5480:Monarch
5455:Charter
5309:Fascism
5131:Statism
5031:Anarchy
5004:Systems
4970:Levels:
4843:Lebanon
4781:Portals
4535:1073894
4209:29 June
4125:(1992).
3696:24 June
3159:2 March
3018:(1962).
2635:statute
2072:holding
2035:slip op
860:"Super
852:"Super
741:analogy
598:en banc
469:or the
380:In the
220:adopted
216:applied
105:scholar
8283:Police
8254:Agency
8136:Lawyer
7881:Sharia
7772:Treaty
7767:Repeal
7713:Decree
7624:Custom
7520:Estate
7470:Labour
7234:Equity
6588:
6322:Social
6220:Europe
6141:Titles
5826:World:
5816:Treaty
5651:Voting
5606:Zoning
5465:Roles:
5011:Lists:
4945:Empire
4940:Nation
4731:about
4710:7 June
4624:
4592:
4558:
4533:
4424:7 June
4283:
4259:
4234:7 June
4185:
3933:4 June
3827:
3761:
3497:
3439:
3364:7 June
3281:12 May
3256:12 May
3227:
3204:12 May
2832:
2824:
2740:Taqlid
2301:supply
2115:Burnet
2087:Burnet
1715:Burnet
1590:Quebec
1534:Sweden
1519:German
1495:France
952:In a "
928:(also
828:norms
693:under
624:submit
540:and a
440:case:
414:appeal
353:maxim
107:
100:
93:
86:
78:
8358:Index
8224:Court
8168:Trial
8074:Judge
7915:Yassa
7718:Edict
7264:Civil
7217:Crime
6474:Lists
6458:Other
4935:State
4819:Kenya
4807:India
4679:(PDF)
4661:(PDF)
4646:(PDF)
4531:JSTOR
3927:(PDF)
3920:(PDF)
3850:(PDF)
3437:S2CID
3417:(PDF)
3399:(PDF)
3384:(PDF)
3326:(PDF)
3182:: 18.
3153:(PDF)
3142:(PDF)
3107:: 743
2966:1 May
2960:(PDF)
2953:(PDF)
2830:S2CID
2802:(PDF)
2747:Notes
2730:Qiyas
2436:state
2207:R v G
2051:Casey
1570:mixed
1568:Some
1308:, as
1306:Latin
1111:law.
939:dicta
820:In a
700:. In
386:cases
351:Latin
152:court
112:JSTOR
98:books
8106:Jury
8054:Fiqh
7910:Xeer
7308:Tort
7224:Deed
6066:and
4919:and
4712:2019
4687:2011
4622:ISBN
4603:2020
4590:ISBN
4569:2020
4556:ISBN
4497:help
4426:2019
4358:2012
4336:2018
4306:2022
4281:ISBN
4257:ISBN
4236:2019
4211:2020
4183:ISBN
4156:See
4144:2012
4071:2020
4037:2020
4003:2020
3978:2020
3935:2012
3862:2023
3825:ISSN
3759:ISBN
3723:2022
3698:2022
3673:2022
3557:2022
3495:PMID
3366:2019
3341:2024
3283:2022
3258:2022
3225:ISBN
3206:2022
3161:2016
3113:2012
3066:2012
3040:2019
2982:link
2968:2013
2864:2024
2822:ISSN
2772:2018
2336:The
2316:The
1733:The
1720:The
1649:and
1647:Coke
1621:Law
1605:and
1592:and
1406:and
1144:Erie
967:and
716:and
677:, a
547:The
459:and
84:news
7178:Law
5612:Law
4795:Law
4523:doi
4459:PBS
3898:doi
3817:doi
3429:doi
3334:318
2814:doi
2583:me.
2443:or
2125:in
2049:in
1625:in
1576:in
1265:".
1242:or
1219:or
963:In
915:Roe
848:).
731:of
687:law
685:In
669:or
289:ÉÉr
67:by
34:or
8386::
7612:/
4703:.
4685:.
4681:.
4654:14
4652:.
4648:.
4529:.
4519:87
4517:.
4488::
4486:}}
4482:{{
4416:.
4322:.
4227:.
4165:^
4057:.
4023:.
4019:.
3986:^
3964:.
3943:^
3864:,
3852:,
3823:.
3813:84
3714:.
3689:.
3664:.
3608:^
3578:^
3548:.
3509:.
3491:68
3489:.
3485:.
3462:.
3435:.
3425:19
3423:.
3419:.
3392:14
3390:.
3386:.
3357:.
3332:.
3328:.
3313:^
3274:.
3248:.
3197:.
3180:63
3178:.
3144:.
3105:51
3103:.
3099:.
3081:,
3031:.
3014:,
2998:,
2978:}}
2974:{{
2890:^
2872:^
2855:.
2842:^
2828:.
2820:.
2810:35
2808:.
2804:.
2763:.
2388:,
2377:,
2366:,
2331:in
1959:,
1841::
1682:,
1584:,
1580:,
1320:.
1246:.
941:,
743:.
735:.
665:,
638:.
584:.
477:.
342:eÉŞ
336:ÉË
312:aÉŞ
7170:e
7163:t
7156:v
6634:e
6627:t
6620:v
6562:)
6558:(
6055:e
6048:t
6041:v
5646::
5614::
5156::
4909:e
4902:t
4895:v
4783::
4714:.
4630:.
4605:.
4571:.
4537:.
4525::
4499:)
4495:(
4441:.
4428:.
4360:.
4338:.
4308:.
4287:.
4265:.
4238:.
4213:.
4191:.
4146:.
4073:.
4039:.
4005:.
3980:.
3937:.
3900::
3880:.
3831:.
3819::
3767:.
3725:.
3700:.
3675:.
3559:.
3515:.
3501:,
3483:"
3443:.
3431::
3368:.
3343:.
3285:.
3260:.
3233:.
3208:.
3163:.
3115:.
3068:.
3042:.
2984:)
2970:.
2866:.
2836:.
2816::
2774:.
1548:(
1540:(
1393:)
1387:(
1382:)
1378:(
1374:.
1364:.
856:"
345:/
339:r
333:t
330:s
327:Ë
324:,
321:s
318:ÉŞ
315:s
309:s
306:Ë
303:ÉŞ
300:d
295:i
292:r
286:t
283:s
280:Ë
277:/
273:(
134:)
128:(
123:)
119:(
109:¡
102:¡
95:¡
88:¡
61:.
38:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
