This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Wolf principally argued that staredecisis justifies maintaining the doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that “it’s not the strongest staredecisis argument” in light of Supreme Courtdecisions characterizing the doctrine as a failure. The post Doctrinal “dinosaur” or staredecisis?
“The court is fooling no one,”” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent. She argued the Court has offered no “special justification,” as required, for breaking from the precedent set in Mille r and has therefore circumvented staredecisis , the legal principle that states the court must follow previous precedents.
Share The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to impose new restrictions on the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole, rejecting a challenge from a Mississippi man, Brett Jones, who was convicted of the 2004 stabbing death of his grandfather, a crime committed when Jones was 15.
This means that issues decided at the district or administrative court level can be binding on all other courts: district courts, administrative courts, appellate courts, and even the Supreme Court. District courtdecisions are not binding precedent because they are at the bottom. ” Id.
Texas , which were amply supported by the habeas and trial records, and whether the Texas court disregarded the Supreme Court’s express guidance for conducting a prejudice analysis pursuant to Strickland v.
Andrus’ case cries out for intervention, and it is particularly vital that this Court act when necessary to protect against defiance of its precedents. The Court, however, denies certiorari. I would summarily reverse, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s failure to do so.” agree with the dissenting judges below.
Finally, the Court emphasized that while it was overruling Chevron , it was not calling into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. Justice Elena Kagan authored a strongly worded dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”.
It’s a little surprising the court let stand a federal courtdecision invalidating a state statute on constitutional grounds, but animal-rights groups defending that decision argued persuasively that state statutes are in a state of flux and it would be premature for the justices to take up the case now.
There are five comments that could be made about the Court of Appeal’s decision (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. 6] First, the Court of Appeal (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U. 8] It should be stressed that Oputa JSC’s obiter dictum is not binding on lower courts according to the Nigerian common law doctrine of staredecisis.
The court’s ruling comes as Americans wait for a US Supreme Courtdecision in Dobbs v. The decision could overturn Roe v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
What I would consider as an ambitious aspect of the book, however, is the authors’ categorical position regarding the non-binding effect of the obiter dicta of some Supreme Courtdecisions.
The abortion providers’ case relies heavily on staredecisis. While such cases aren’t yet the norm, Curtis’ story prompted one politically independent commentator to remark , “Medical science advancement poses a greater risk to the abortion status quo than any courtdecision.”.
Against staredecisis. Many amici focus on the principle of staredecisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case. They say Roe and Casey are not worthy of the deference that the court typically affords to its prior decisions. In favor of staredecisis. Legislative authority.
I think people are aware of high-profile issues… what the Supreme Court does on abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, but my guess is that people don’t realize that there has been no Supreme Courtdecision since 1986, 35 years ago, about eyewitness identification. Or does staredecisis make it stuck as a precedent?
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content