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
The post Justice Elena Kagan Tells It Like It Is When It Comes To StareDecisis And The Politicization Of The Supreme Court appeared first on Above the Law. She wants to be an optimist, but this Court might not let her.
“Repudiating Roe (Part II): The Pernicious Doctrine of StareDecisis.” ” Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen has this essay online at Public Discourse.
“Justice Kagan’s Unusual and Dubious Approach to ‘Reliance’ Interests Relating to StareDecisis”: Law professor Vikram David Amar has this essay online at Justia’s Verdict.
“Detrimental Reliance and StareDecisis; Insightful thoughts from Dean Vik Amar relevant to Ramos v. Louisiana”: Will Baude has this post at “The Volokh Conspiracy.”
“The Truth About StareDecisis: Justice Kavanaugh presented a view of precedent that centers on republican self-government.” ” Andy Smarick has this post at the “Law & Liberty” blog.
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 Court decisions characterizing the doctrine as a failure. The post Doctrinal “dinosaur” or staredecisis?
Wade Must Go for Precedent’s Sake; Staredecisis is too important to be defined by such a poorly reasoned case”: Adam J. “Roe v. White will have this op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
“What Is StareDecisis, and Why Is It Intellectually Hollow B t? There are no rules for when the Supreme Court can overturn its precedent. There is only the question of whether there are five votes to do it.” ” Elie Mystal has this post at Balls and Strikes.
Staredecisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments, i.e., precedent, when resolving a case with comparable facts. the Federal Circuit applied staredecisis to a prior validity ruling involving a different patent and a different accused infringer.
Though the court’s decision in Loper may contradict the staredecisi s principle of judicial continuity, the court found that some cases must involve the court “correcting [its] own mistakes.”
Although these decisions may not have as significant an impact in patent law as in other areas, they do pose interesting puzzles with respect to staredecisis as well as agency rulemaking and discretion that will provide many litigation opportunities going forward.
Staredecisis only matters when it’s convenient for this version of the high court. The post You Can Kiss Precedent Goodbye Thanks To The Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority appeared first on Above the Law.
The basic question : does the PTAB have to follow a district court's prior claim construction of a patent term under principles of staredecisis ? But, the USPTO changed its approach a few years ago and linked the standards -- with the result that the issue should not simply be ducked. Continue reading this post on Patently-O.
Of course, this brings us to our word of the month: STAREDECISIS. According to Black's Law Dictionary, STAREDECISIS means: Latin: To stand by things decided. The doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.
“A Century-Long ‘Reign of Error’ for a Supreme Court Typo; A sweeping statement in a 1928 opinion about property rights was revised soon after it was issued; But the error lived on”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times about a forthcoming (..)
A recent Law360 guest article rightly questions the pretextual pseudo-originalism that permits ideology to masquerade as judicial philosophy, but the cure would kill the patient because directness, simplicity and humanness are achievable without renouncing form or sacrificing staredecisis, says Vanessa Kubota at the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Hamilton ‘s majority opinion explained: The Chief Justice’s concurring opinion in June Medical offered the narrowest basis for the judgment in that case, giving staredecisis effect to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt , 136 S. 2292 (2016), on the essentially identical facts in June Medical.
In allowing the states to usurp citizens’ intellectual property rights, the justices of the Allen Court prioritized either a dogmatic form of staredecisis or the New Federalist ideology over the Constitution and its structure and history.
It has staredecisis effect.” On the other hand, “if we’ve just kind of used the word without deciding the issue, then … that doesn’t have staredecisis effect and, to the contrary, we disclaim any understanding that the thing was meant to be jurisdictional in the pure sense.”.
When a trial judge rules that a law is unconstitutional, who is bound by that decision? In R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19, the SCC has made it crystal clear: these declarations are.
In normal circumstances, the Court’s previous repudiations of the independent state legislature theory would counsel in favor of following the principle of staredecisi s, which suggests the Court should not overturn previous decisions except in extreme circumstances. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015).
In addition to all of the above, Hologic argues that the court should maintain the doctrine because of staredecisis. When the justices convene, they will have an opportunity to determine whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel remains valid, whether as a matter of statutory interpretation, staredecisis or otherwise.
.” Even if the court had “doubts” about that rule, they should have provided “special justification” before overruling Miller and Montgomery , which they failed to do: How low this Court’s respect for staredecisis has sunk. … For most, the answer is yes.
Staredecisis does not compel continued adherence to Section 1983 precedent, according to HHC. Talevski offers three arguments for why staredecisis carries greater force in this case. States cannot knowingly and voluntarily accept federal money if they are unaware of the conditions on those funds.
The common law’s precedent system, referred to as staredecisis, requires courts to adhere to decisions from higher courts, including those from larger benches or earlier instances of the same court. The judgement from May 2022 directed the State of Gujarat to consider the application of the convicts for premature release.
She said she also relies upon precedent and the concept of staredecisis to reach her judgment and form an opinion. Jackson specified that she does not interpret the law from her own understanding but tries to interpret it according to its intended purpose.
For the court to overrule Smith now, it would have to overcome the staredecisis effect of both Smith and Boerne. Alternatively, adopting the most-favored-nation theory in Fulton would also have profound impacts and call into question Boerne.
These ideas of staredecisis and silent reenactment are part of a major ongoing debate within the Court over its role in changing its own prior precedent. = = = =.
In reaching this holding, the majority expressly did not rely on staredecisis and therefore did not expressly decide whether to overrule Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Co. To resolve this dispute, the court sent the case back to the lower courts, which had not ruled on the issue. Formica Insulation Co. ,
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. “The court is fooling no one,”” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent.
3d 318, finding the part was not dictum and there is nothing that “warrants departure from the doctrine of staredecisis.” In doing so, the court rejects a call to overturn part of its decision in Cameron v. State of California (1972) 7 Cal.3d
In the next section, I further the discussion on the issue of diversity, looking at subject matter diversity, diversity of views, and the place of staredecisis and precedents in light of the current debates about PIL and expertise in the Nigerian Supreme Court and its resonance for the legal system.
.” As to waiver based upon the “not binding” statement from Motorola, the Federal Circuit concluded that the intent of that statement was with reference to staredecisis and binding precedent rather than binding as a matter of preclusion. “[W]e have discretion to excuse any forfeiture.” ” Id.
In cases involving the Supreme Court’s interpretation of statutes, she observed, the presumption of staredecisis – that is, the principle that courts should not overturn their prior precedent unless there is a good reason to do so – “is at its peak” because Congress can always change the law.
” Justice Gorsuch filed a lengthy concurrence, portions of which were joined by no other Justice, in which he argued that staredecisis principles supported overruling Chevron because the decision was inconsistent with “the laws adopted by the Nation’s elected representatives,” the APA, and the Constitution. .”
The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory staredecisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology,” Roberts wrote.
Ultimately, the case raises important issues about the retroactivity of judicial decisions interpreting statutes and has potential sleeper implications for the justices’ treatment of precedent and staredecisis in subsequent cases.
The point is only that the case is protected by the same principles of a staredecisis as other cases, which affords protection to precedent but does not make such cases inviolate. There is nothing disingenuous in saying that a case is not super-precedent but still might not be overturned.
The Supreme Court directly revisited the rule in Kimble, but ultimately chose to uphold the rule based on staredecisis. .” This rule, known as the Brulotte rule, has faced criticism over the years for being economically irrational and inflexible.
We only call balls and strikes. Unless our team is losing. Then it’s hockey and we start punching.'. The post Nothing Is A Better Distraction From A Nakedly Political Court Than A Totally Important Game Of Whodunit appeared first on Above the Law.
The elimination of constitutional staredecisis would represent an explicit endorsement of the idea that the Constitution is nothing more than what five justices say it is.” - Former Associate Justice Lewis Powell. The post Where Were You When StareDecisis Died? appeared first on Above the Law.
13] The Court defended the exemption largely on the grounds of staredecisis and congressional acquiescence, tasking Congress with changing the long-standing law if they felt the need. [14] Kuhn , which saw the Supreme Court acknowledge that baseball was in fact interstate commerce, yet again defend baseball’s exemption. [13]
11] While this undoubtedly represents the correct position of the law in principle, it is however of doubtful practical effect given the peculiarity of the diminishing line between rationes decidendi and obiter dicta under the Nigerian version of the doctrine of staredecisis as well the attitude of Nigerian courts to decisions of higher courts.
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