Court Rules Stare Decisis Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 10, 2021
In June 2020, the Supreme Court issued a summary reversal – meaning it decided the case without merits briefing or oral argument – in Andrus v. In an unsigned opinion, the court ruled that Terence Andrus had demonstrated that his lawyer provided deficient performance at sentencing for failing to investigate or introduce mitigating evidence.
SCOTUSBlog
JULY 1, 2021
The lower courts blocked Minerva from asserting invalidity because Minerva’s founder had filed the original patent applications and then sold the patent rights, which eventually ended up with Hologic. The lower courts ruled that the founder’s original assignment of patent rights prevented, or “estopped,” Minerva from contesting validity.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
MARCH 30, 2022
The Supreme Court instructed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider whether counsel’s inadequate performance had prejudiced Andrus – that is, whether but for counsel’s deficient performance, the mitigating evidence might have prompted at least one juror to opt for a sentence of life without parole rather than the death penalty.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 20, 2022
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. Some older Supreme Court decisions support that theory of consent. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. ,
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 17, 2023
In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Trans World Airlines v. Groff assures the court that it can overturn Hardison without worrying about stare decisis – the idea that courts should not overrule their prior cases unless there is a compelling reason to do so – because the Supreme Court in Hardison was not interpreting Title VII at all.
JonathanTurley
DECEMBER 5, 2021
Justices Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer insisted that overturning Roe in whole or in part would bring ruin upon the court by abandoning the principle of stare decisis , or the respect for precedent. The 1896 ruling of Plessy v. There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity.”.
JonathanTurley
NOVEMBER 29, 2021
To uphold Roe , the court likely will require more than the usual arguments of stare decisis , the doctrine that the court should generally stand by its precedents. The court ruled 5-4 to allow the Texas law to be enforced. She later blamed the case for reversing the trend toward more pro-choice states.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
93 
Let's personalize your content