Court Litigating Stare Decisis 
Patently O
JULY 24, 2024
Latty Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law In a flurry of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has continued its skepticism of administrative agencies. Consider first stare decisis and the Court’s overruling of Chevron deference (i.e. no standing requirement).
Patently O
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
University of Illinois Foundation (1971), the Supreme Court held that a judgment of invalidity in a suit against one infringer accrues to the benefit of any other accused infringer unless the patent owner shows that he did not have a fair opportunity procedurally, substantively and evidentially to pursue his patent claim the first time.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 23, 2021
Hochman fielded several questions about why the court should abandon a doctrine that the court has recognized for nearly a century. Morgan Ratner argued for the federal government, which filed its own friend-of-the-court brief but supported neither party. The post Doctrinal “dinosaur” or stare decisis?
JURIST
JUNE 28, 2024
The US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that courts must exercise independent judgment in assessing an agency’s statutory authority. The Supreme Court did not decide on the facts of Loper. The Loper court disagreed, finding that “ Chevron was a judicial invention that required judges to disregard their statutory duties.”
Legal Research is Easy
AUGUST 5, 2019
Thing is, these days law and the decisions courts hand down are very much like that. People go to one court, don't get what they want so they go to another court asking for, basically, the same thing. Of course, this brings us to our word of the month: STARE DECISIS. Schempp , 374 U.S.
JURIST
JANUARY 8, 2024
The Supreme Court of India allowed a petition by Bilkis Bano on Monday against the premature release of convicts involved in the 2002 Gujarat communal riots. The court concluded that the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by Bano is maintainable.
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 1, 2022
Wilkins and the government fought in the lower courts over whether the suit, filed many years after the general public use began, was timely. For many years the court loosely referred to problems as “jurisdictional” without intending the strict consequences that follow under the modern conception of judicial authority. Commissioner.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
53 
Let's personalize your content