2546:
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.
1698:
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. ...
4839:
671:
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.
1212:("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).
4815:
1693:
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
760:
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
4851:
189:, 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
4755:
8321:
4779:
1974:, 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."
8335:
7101:
6585:
6574:
4827:
36:
1078:
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.
4743:
4803:
2521:
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.
1339:
4791:
7113:
756:
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.
409:
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.
1227:
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
2014:, 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."
611:. 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,
2637:, 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 .
2339:(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.
853:" 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.
1920:, 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)
1952:): "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'."
2545:
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
408:
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
1103:
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
794:
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
739:
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
503:
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
2914:
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
2460:
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
2398:
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
2265:
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
1717:
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
1453:
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
1279:
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
1156:
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
759:
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,
618:
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
2919:
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
2309:
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
1697:
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
1399:
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
1201:
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
1141:
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
860:
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:
499:
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
485:
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
1249:
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)
1112:
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
2520:
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
2385:
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
2233:
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
1763:
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
1073:
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.
1692:
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
1618:
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
1091:
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
670:
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
4239:
2212:
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
1077:
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.
1045:
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
3628:
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
2897:
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
2284:, 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
1050:
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
925:
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,
1888:(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."
1111:
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
1226:
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
2082:
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
873:), 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-
755:
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
1966:, 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."
740:
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.
1064:
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.
1589:
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
2399:
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.
1250:
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 "
1108:. 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.
795:
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.
560:, 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.
1481:
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
2250:
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.
1086:
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
2910:," 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
2626:, 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
751:
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.
1906:
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:
2598:
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.
2476:
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
2427:
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
2120:(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".
1688:, 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."
1424: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.
2213:
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
1998:, 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 ."
1876:
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
1863:
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
400:
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
1171:
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.
1894:
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
3127:
2576:
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
1270:
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.
1033:
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:
3591:
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
3638:
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
1646:; 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
1324:
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.
2098:
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".
219:, 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;
1800:, 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.
1633:
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
602:
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.
486:
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 "
3578:, 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).
2581:
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:
773:
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
385:, 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
580:, 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
1764:
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.
2351:"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."
2173:
1598:. 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
346:: "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:
1183:
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.
2310:
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
469:
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
2589:
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
2373:"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."
504:
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.
1881:
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
1490:
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,
2571:
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
2177:
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
4365:, 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
231:, 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.
3138:
353:
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.
2497:
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
6042:
1754:, 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.
2225:(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,
1280:
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.
2298:, 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
728:
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
163:
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.
2461:
trend of other judicial decisions, changing context and improved scientific understanding, observation of practical outcomes and "what works", contemporary standards of justice, and
2078:(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:
1549:), 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.
3128:"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"
2362:"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."
6474:
2034:, 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
2436:, 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.
2143:
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.
1734: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
1130:(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
2505:
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.
2493:
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
2139:
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
2006:, 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."
1706:, Brandeis "catalogued the Court's actual overruling practices in such a powerful manner that his attendant stare decisis analysis immediately assumed canonical authority."
1803:
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.
338:) 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
2904:," 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. "
2347:
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.
6035:
4308:
1846:
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
1842:
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
1312:
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
431:
350:
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.
517:
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
584:
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
1771:
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.
1439:
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
623:
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
2693:
2563:
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
2314:(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
1126:
1017:
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
5961:
2407:
Occasionally, lower court judges may explicitly state a personal disagreement with the rendered judgment, but are required to rule a particular way because of
2074:
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
1151:
825:, 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
1899:
lawsuits can be quickly and efficiently dismissed because legal battles can be resolved through recourse to rules and principles established prior decisions.
6028:
2688:
2530:
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, "
552:
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
1723:
1710:
1262:
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.
981:
1142:
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.
778:
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."
548:, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of
3085:
2898:"refused to follow" a "controlling precedent" of the Supreme Court. The rule that lower courts should abide by controlling precedent, sometimes called "
2938:
193:. A precedent is a historical setting example for the future (though at varying levels of authority as discussed throughout this article), some become
1872:, 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."
211:(if precedent is persuasive), if the principles underpinning the previous decision are accordingly used to evaluate the issues of the subsequent case;
4896:
4689:
4460:
2443:, 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
2322:
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.
1420:, not very analytical, and fact-based. The reason for this difference is that these civil law jurisdictions apply legislative positivism â a form of
3369:
2489:
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
2048:, 467 U.S. 203, at 212 (1984): "Although adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases, any departure from the doctrine of
1850:
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.
1506:
tend to be much more developed than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and doctrinal writers. However, some courts (such as
2469:
the text, not changing itâinterpretation is the process of resolving ambiguity and choosing from among possible meanings, not changing the text.
533:. Thus, the lower courts are bound to obey precedent established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent.
1406:
and constitute a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called
1038:
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
6208:
4392:, 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").
4005:
3867:
Elizabeth Y. McCuskey, Clarity and Clarification: Grable Federal Questions in the Eyes of Their Beholders, 91 NEB. L. REV. 387, 427-430 (2012)
3042:
2378:
2209:("guilty mind") by measuring a defendant's conduct against that of a "reasonable person", regardless of the defendant's actual state of mind.
1514:
courts, but have more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is.
1021:(reason for the decision). For these reasons, the obiter dicta may often be taken into consideration by a court. A litigant may also consider
6479:
6469:
1585:, 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
1525:, for instance, case law arguably plays a more important role than in some of the continental civil law systems. The two highest courts, the
1541:), have the right to set precedent which has persuasive authority on all future application of the law. Appellate courts, be they judicial (
802:
The position in the court hierarchy of the court which decided the precedent, relative to the position in the court trying the current case.
147:
when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called
1449:
using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law. This doctrine is similar to
4665:"Stopping the Pendulum: Why Stare Decisis Should Constrain the Court from Further Modification of the Search Incident to Arrest Exception"
4631:
1838:
courts had absorbed most of the business of their nonroyal competitors, although there was still internal competition among the different
1738:
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,
225:, 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
3260:
1013:
in the opinions of higher courts. The Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The phrase
6578:
6489:
4124:
2970:
2359:(1992). Indeed, "hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.' "
2335:(1584), it allows the court to enforce what the statute is intended to remedy rather than what the words actually say. For example, in
906:
as a "super-precedent". He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.
438:
Judges may refer to various types of persuasive authority to reach a decision in a case. Widely cited nonbinding sources include legal
414:
373:
tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedent, which record how and why prior
6621:
6544:
5009:
569:
The doctrine stating that a judge is bound by (or at least should respect) previous decisions by the same court is called horizontal
4107:
1806:
Substantial law on almost all matters was neither legislated nor codified, eliminating the need for courts to interpret legislation.
8302:
6105:
5906:
3903:
2164:
698:
1305:, 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
8393:
6838:
3516:
4043:
3950:
1521:
are sometimes considered a branch of the civil law, but they are sometimes counted as separate from the civil law tradition. In
949:
that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.
607:
When a federal court rules on an issue of state law, the federal court must follow the precedent of the state courts, under the
6484:
6425:
6095:
2537:
Caleb Nelson, a former clerk for Justice Thomas and law professor at the University of Virginia, has elaborated on the role of
2135:
1958:, 502 U.S. 197, at 202 (1991): "Adherence to precedent promotes stability, predictability, and respect for judicial authority."
1534:
1416:
but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short, referring only to
1074:
Often, these opinions are the only available authority interpreting rarelyâlitigated statutes and constitutional provisions.
926:
administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in
678:, a binding precedent (also known as a mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all
462:. Some bodies are given statutory powers to issue guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the
243:, where past decisions do not usually have the precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making; the
4889:
4175:
3751:
2534:
doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let's get it right."
2302:, merely an invitation to treat. As a result of this case, Parliament amended the statute concerned to end this discrepancy.
2274:
A judge's normal aids include access to all previous cases in which a precedent has been set, and a good English dictionary.
822:
6519:
6504:
4316:
861:
the difficulty of overturning a decision. In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in
418:
2411:. Inferior courts cannot evade binding precedent of superior courts, but a court can depart from its own prior decisions.
8413:
6499:
6435:
2168:
2125:
694:
394:
5237:
1025:
if a court has previously signaled that a particular legal argument is weak and may even warrant sanctions if repeated.
100:
6554:
6203:
2102:
As Colin Starger has pointed out, the contemporary rule of stare decisis descended from Brandeis's landmark dissent in
992:
Courts may consider rulings made in other courts that are of equivalent authority in the legal system. For example, an
892:
before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the committee chair, Senator
577:
4387:
3017:
2439:
Courts may choose to obey precedent of international jurisdictions, but this is not an application of the doctrine of
1936:
requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable." (citations omitted)
867:
for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in
744:
In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to
500:
cited as persuasive (though of course opinions that concur in the majority result are more persuasive than dissents).
72:
7728:
7286:
7185:
6534:
6529:
6509:
6334:
4614:
4582:
4548:
4273:
4249:
3217:
2186:
jurisdictions, where there was somewhat greater flexibility for a court of last resort to review its own precedent).
1378:
194:
176:
172:
119:
2042:
stated also that reexamining precedent requires more than "a present doctrinal disposition to come out differently".
1265:
8383:
7842:
7711:
7117:
6588:
6524:
6056:
5493:
4882:
4664:
1809:
Common law's main distinctive features and focus were not substantial law, which was customary law, but procedural.
1486:) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and not going into the
4759:
8297:
7644:
7545:
6559:
4717:
79:
2193:
of 1966. The House of Lords decided to allow itself to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions. In
1815:
Customary law was not a rational and consistent body of rules and did not require a system of binding precedent.
8403:
7804:
7438:
6494:
6251:
5939:
5742:
4039:
3946:
2390:. Once the ambiguity is resolved, that resolution has binding effect as described in the rest of this article.
1293:
A matter of first impression (also known as an "issue of first impression", "case of first impression", or, in
830:
581:
57:
2472:
The two approaches look at different sets of underlying facts that may or may not point in the same directionâ
2002:
7157:
6898:
6752:
6614:
6405:
5873:
2288:(1987), in which several judges in separate opinions found several different dictionary meanings of the word
557:
450:
2945:
7964:
7443:
6514:
6070:
5995:
5928:
5747:
5473:
3114:
977:
86:
2155:
is basic to the English legal system. Special features of the English legal system include the following:
805:
Whether the facts of the current case come within the scope of the principle of law in previous decisions.
7959:
6981:
6539:
6420:
6301:
6181:
6000:
5895:
5004:
3384:
2920:
precedent would not be judicial activism; instead, it would be appropriate constitutional decisionmaking.
2106:
would later split into strong and weak conceptions as a result of the disagreement between Chief Justice
2068:
2030:
1924:
1742:
is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.
1455:
1175:
863:
591:
553:
537:
20:
2508:
Originalists vary in the degree to which they defer to precedent. In his confirmation hearings, Justice
1104:
of English authority was ubiquitous. One of the first acts of many of the new state legislatures was to
493:
When various members of a multi-judge court write separate opinions, the reasoning may differ; only the
7934:
7433:
6453:
6415:
6246:
6005:
5884:
4769:
3086:"51 Texas Law Review 1972-1973 Binding Effect of Federal Declaratory Judgments on State Courts Comment"
1933:
1360:
1349:
938:, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
686:
53:
24:
6020:
2984:
68:
8017:
7006:
6958:
6548:
5972:
5164:
4953:
3831:
3183:
1459:
1165:. Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished.
619:
court of appeals embracing their states, as a matter of comity rather than constitutional obligation.
4485:
4032:
3444:
2026:. at 34 (2018): "We will not overturn a past decision unless there are strong grounds for doing so."
1812:
The practice of citing previous cases was not to find binding legal rules but as evidence of custom.
8398:
7812:
7794:
7105:
7001:
6810:
6757:
6607:
6400:
5950:
5383:
5189:
4843:
4372:
4360:
4017:
3046:
2915:
and Vikram Amar have stated, "Our general view is that the Rehnquist Court's articulated theory of
2652:
2486:
2387:
2260:
1940:
1730:
Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of
1651:
1445:, according to which if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same
1436:
1392:
953:
826:
702:
236:
160:
8146:
8408:
8388:
8187:
7974:
7463:
7448:
6702:
6291:
6231:
6156:
5448:
4973:
3344:"William Tetley, Mixed jurisdictions: common law vs civil law (codified and uncodified) (Part I)"
3311:
1903:
can thus encourage parties to settle cases out of court and thereby enhance judicial efficiency.
1859:
Over time courts in the United States and especially its Supreme Court developed a large body of
1526:
1441:
1266:
Jurisdictional splits: disagreements among different geographical regions or levels of federalism
1121:
1117:
1051:
disagreement with the majority and to urge reform (while following the majority in the outcome).
586:
46:
4402:
4192:
4044:"The Supreme Court's Overruling of Constitutional Precedent; see Footnotes 43-44, 47, 48 and 69"
361:, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions.
8242:
8227:
6737:
5242:
5179:
5174:
4646:
4447:
3650:
3589:
The Opinion Power of the State Attorney General and the Attorney General as a Public Law Actor,
3559:
3495:
3467:
2672:
2555:
There are disadvantages and advantages of binding precedent, as noted by scholars and jurists.
2386:
reach a resolution of the ambiguity. The "Canons of statutory construction" are discussed in a
1912:
1574:
1138:
1113:
459:
3941:
3939:
3937:
3935:
3933:
2870:
2490:
2183:
1647:
1396:
1301:) is an issue where the parties disagree on what the applicable law is, and there is no prior
1088:
791:
683:
421:, provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development of the concept of
378:
8346:
7939:
7617:
7428:
6850:
6793:
6687:
6672:
6296:
6256:
6120:
6085:
6052:
5855:
5353:
5089:
4572:
4538:
4472:
4367:
4338:
4163:
3739:
2634:
1105:
444:
2429:
1797:
1785:
1751:
164:
8067:
7413:
6833:
6351:
6286:
6186:
5488:
5149:
3930:
2703:
2657:
2445:
1643:
1495:
is carried out by legal academics (doctrinal writers) who provide the explanations that in
1413:
1328:
1321:
479:
358:
248:
4213:
3234:
8:
8222:
7362:
7279:
7086:
6855:
6843:
6800:
6410:
6368:
6322:
6236:
6176:
5917:
5533:
5358:
5232:
5169:
5154:
4104:
4013:
3845:, Hamburg, Germany: Max-Planck-Institut fßr ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
2449:âindicating that its effect is limited to the persuasiveness of the reasons it provides.
1570:
1313:
1228:
1221:
996:
for one district could consider a ruling issued by an appeals court in another district.
482:
will resolve such differences, and for many reasons, such appeals are often not granted.
3912:
1356:
8037:
7696:
7550:
7535:
7513:
7257:
7237:
7190:
7180:
7051:
6390:
6378:
6373:
6329:
6279:
6136:
6115:
6110:
5644:
5463:
5388:
5159:
4948:
4938:
4519:
3983:
3675:
3500:
3425:
3343:
2818:
2698:
2502:
2190:
2116:
2089:
2010:
1990:
1978:
1970:
1962:
1949:
1884:
1639:
898:
612:
397:
is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so.
93:
4464:
4051:
3520:
976:
A court may consider the ruling of a higher court that is not binding. For example, a
8378:
8022:
7944:
7782:
7525:
7520:
7473:
7398:
7392:
7232:
7150:
6953:
6933:
6878:
6430:
6385:
6361:
6344:
6241:
6226:
6196:
6191:
6141:
5809:
5772:
5703:
5654:
5528:
5257:
4968:
4610:
4578:
4544:
4269:
4245:
4171:
3958:
3835:
3813:
3747:
3483:
3429:
3213:
2964:
2810:
2408:
2306:
2111:
2107:
2035:
1302:
1093:
922:
787:
4814:
2822:
2071:
has put it: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding".
8027:
7994:
7493:
7357:
7352:
7317:
7013:
6860:
6828:
6805:
6641:
6395:
6356:
6317:
5819:
5674:
5363:
5343:
5277:
5247:
5222:
5184:
4963:
4511:
3886:
3805:
3700:
3417:
2802:
2713:
2677:
2331:
1868:. The United States Supreme Court considers stare decisis not only as an important
1860:
1582:
1518:
1473:
also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions of
1421:
1317:
1232:
1209:
1162:
810:
265:
240:
4747:
4286:
3071:
2749:
2277:
Judges and barristers in the UK use three primary rules for interpreting the law.
1818:
Before the printing press, the state of the written records of cases rendered the
748:
the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent.
590:, that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the
8276:
8249:
8237:
8217:
8151:
8129:
8109:
8104:
8084:
7949:
7929:
7924:
7827:
7787:
7498:
7423:
7347:
7332:
7252:
7076:
7066:
7023:
6973:
6923:
6918:
6913:
6783:
6778:
6722:
6712:
6651:
6646:
6339:
6274:
6146:
5659:
5413:
5393:
5348:
5134:
4855:
4819:
4439:
4111:
3890:
3878:
3004:
2723:
2531:
2509:
2494:
2215:
2018:
1945:
1558:
1402:
1251:
1244:
993:
957:
885:
775:
717:
706:
641:
526:
495:
475:
390:
244:
4731:
3534:
2841:
1673:
8353:
8161:
8079:
7668:
7634:
7585:
7570:
7342:
7247:
7227:
7217:
7061:
7030:
7018:
6986:
6928:
6893:
6888:
6820:
6682:
6677:
6630:
6151:
6090:
6080:
6075:
5829:
5824:
5708:
5478:
5403:
5307:
5272:
4923:
4831:
3911:. Vol. 1. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. pp. 92â93. Archived from
2708:
2564:
2513:
2478:
2245:
1995:
1869:
1768:
1625:
1294:
857:
624:
455:
215:
180:
175:(that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of
4371:, 522 U.S. 3 (1997); see also the concurring opinion of Chief Judge Walker in
3809:
8372:
8207:
8166:
8052:
8032:
8004:
7954:
7919:
7893:
7888:
7881:
7832:
7772:
7612:
7602:
7560:
7483:
7478:
7408:
7367:
7291:
7071:
6996:
6948:
6773:
6732:
6727:
6707:
6697:
5850:
5458:
5317:
5109:
5039:
4943:
4072:
3817:
2814:
2683:
2647:
2433:
2367:
2356:
2326:
2294:
2167:, as the court of last appeal outside Scotland before it was replaced by the
2060:
1642:). Today academic writers are often cited in legal argument and decisions as
1446:
1202:
property damage, and then personal injury in a separate case. This is called
1131:
1047:
893:
767:
729:
608:
530:
168:
2622:
wishes to alter the case law (other than constitutional interpretations) by
2158:
8339:
8089:
8057:
8012:
7750:
7745:
7716:
7629:
7607:
7575:
7508:
7488:
7382:
7322:
7312:
7264:
7222:
7200:
7143:
7056:
6991:
6943:
6938:
6870:
6747:
6742:
5860:
5669:
5574:
5438:
5267:
5252:
4978:
4807:
4795:
4499:
3487:
2871:
World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions: a Resource for Readers and Writers
2662:
2299:
2281:
2242:
had been wrongly decided and agreed to depart from their earlier decision.
2221:
2201:
2171:, was not strictly bound to always follow its own decisions until the case
2064:
1917:
1408:
1306:
1204:
1196:
1009:
946:
889:
463:
439:
410:
4874:
4850:
3184:"Case Law in a Legal System Without Binding Precedent: The French Example"
2133:. In this case, the Court upheld, by a 5â4 margin, their 2016 decision in
1179:, claim preclusion, collateral estoppel, issue preclusion, law of the case
1081:
884:(or "super-precedent") was mentioned during the hearings of Chief Justice
8261:
8202:
8192:
7989:
7984:
7822:
7723:
7639:
7598:
7565:
7530:
7453:
7377:
7327:
7242:
6908:
6883:
6717:
6667:
5834:
5767:
5584:
5503:
5287:
5262:
5212:
5124:
5084:
5079:
5059:
5054:
5044:
5029:
5024:
3770:, 608 F.2d 965, 969-970 (3rd Cir. 1979) (footnote omitted), as quoted in
3629:
Carolina Attorney General's interpretation of this South Carolina law.â).
3074:(2007) (Ninth Circuit decisions do not bind Supreme Court of California).
2787:
2667:
2619:
2586:
cases where the foreign jurisdiction's law is the subject of the case, or
2578:
2457:
2266:
precedent, and experience with various interpretations of similar texts.
2226:
1929:
1635:
1502:
In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries,
1329:
Contrasting role of case law in common law, civil law, and mixed systems
1158:
935:
869:
745:
690:
679:
667:
522:
4754:
153:(a Latin phrase with the literal meaning "to stand by things decided").
8325:
8254:
8134:
8072:
7817:
7738:
7733:
7691:
7673:
7661:
7622:
7468:
7458:
7418:
7403:
7387:
7337:
7274:
7269:
7081:
6963:
6903:
6692:
6050:
5589:
5518:
5408:
5327:
5312:
5292:
5104:
5074:
5064:
5034:
4909:
4783:
4607:
Profit and the Practice of Law: What's Happened to the Legal Profession
4523:
3786:, 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
3774:, 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
3402:
2890:
Kmiec, Keenan. The Origin and Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism",
2806:
2424:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1630:
1615:
1586:
1511:
1496:
1474:
1168:
1059:
980:
in the United States First Circuit could consider a ruling made by the
818:
814:
762:
556:
are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the
518:
386:
374:
370:
190:
156:
136:
3866:
3651:"LibGuides: Depublication of California Cases: What is Depublication?"
2606:
because it allows judges, who may or may not be elected, to make law.
1826:
These features changed over time, opening the door to the doctrine of
1746:
Lord Hodge of the UK Supreme Court quoted Lord Wright in 1938 saying:
8232:
8197:
8139:
8114:
7979:
7876:
7864:
7849:
7837:
7765:
7683:
7540:
5793:
5713:
5632:
5569:
5498:
5373:
5282:
5217:
5142:
5129:
5114:
5099:
5069:
5049:
3855:
Judge-made law is an independent source of law in common law systems.
2603:
2189:
This situation changed, however, after the House of Lords issued the
1611:
1562:
961:
931:
798:
Two facts are crucial to determining whether a precedent is binding:
693:
it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as the
8320:
4778:
4515:
4006:"Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions"
3843:
Rabels Zeitschrift fßr ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
3798:
Rabels Zeitschrift fßr ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht
2229:
stated he was "undeterred by the consideration that the decision in
1510:
courts) have less emphasis on the particular facts of the case than
35:
8281:
8266:
7969:
7854:
7651:
7195:
5757:
5513:
5368:
5302:
5227:
5194:
5094:
4983:
4905:
3421:
2206:
2023:
1620:
1566:
1454:
result, the precedent of courts of last resort, such as the French
1097:
965:
834:
710:
597:
471:
422:
186:
159:
legal systems often view precedent as binding or persuasive, while
144:
6599:
4339:"Part E - The rules of statutory interpretation - The golden rule"
3224:(Rombauer was a professor of law at the University of Washington.)
2329:
is the most flexible of the interpretation methods. Stemming from
1986:
will allow courts swiftly to dispose of repetitive suits ..."
945:", courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other
8171:
8119:
8099:
8047:
7859:
7777:
7593:
7555:
7503:
7046:
6100:
5799:
5564:
5523:
5468:
5443:
5297:
5119:
5019:
4742:
3297:
1966 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) by Lord Gardiner L.C
2623:
1507:
1417:
1161:. "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the
2342:
1677:, 405â411 (1932), explained (citations and quotations omitted):
735:
One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows:
171:(that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and
8271:
8124:
7869:
7760:
7755:
7701:
7372:
5804:
5639:
5594:
4933:
4928:
4094:, 285 U.S. 393, 406â407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
3784:
United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne)
3772:
United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne)
2728:
2238:(2002), the majority of House members adopted the opinion that
1605:
1578:
1522:
1483:
402:
4502:(2001). "Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedent".
4170:. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 19â46.
4038:
3945:
3881:
and Sangick Jeon, "The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent",
3836:"The scope of judicial law-making in the common law tradition"
3746:. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 19â46.
3614:
State Attorneys General as Interpreters of State Constitutions
3576:
The State Attorney Generalâs Duty to Advice as a Source of Law
2516:, qualifying his willingness to change precedent in this way:
1106:
adopt the body of English common law into the law of the state
1041:
planting seeds for a future overruling of the majority opinion
630:
277:
8212:
8156:
8062:
7903:
7706:
7205:
4861:
4609:. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. pp. 161â163.
4577:(4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 74.
2718:
2195:
927:
339:
324:
140:
4574:
Understanding Jurisprudence: An Introduction to Legal Theory
3951:"The Supreme Court's Overruling of Constitutional Precedent"
2246:
Distinguishing precedent on legal (rather than fact) grounds
8094:
8042:
7898:
7296:
7212:
6788:
2423:
can interact in counterintuitive ways with the federal and
2199:
UKHL 50, the House of Lords overruled its 1981 decision in
330:
300:
283:
2602:
An argument often leveled against precedent is that it is
1667:
Justice Louis Brandeis, in a heavily footnoted dissent to
1650:
systems are adopting one of the approaches long common in
1499:
jurisdictions would be provided by the judges themselves.
478:
may be necessary. Usually, only an appeal accepted by the
7166:
5600:
3468:"Abortion, Precedent, and the Constitution: A Comment on
2159:
The Supreme Court's ability to override its own precedent
1792:
doctrine for a range of legal and technological reasons:
1684:
is not ... a universal, inexorable command. "The rule of
1623:
and may be published in treatises or in journals such as
675:
432:
Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd
306:
291:
4105:
Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decision
3470:
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
2019:
Janus v. Am. Fed. of State, County, & Mun. Employees
1215:
3403:"Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis"
2694:
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
2129:
provides a clear statement of the strong conception of
1928:, 505 U.S. 833, at 854 (1992): "he very concept of the
1157:
decide whether a decision is to be or not published in
1082:
Persuasive effect of decisions from other jurisdictions
646:
Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as
7135:
3061:
2123:
The opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in the case
1274:
1152:
Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States
766:(that is, they agree to hear a case) is if there is a
4767:
4241:
Textbook on Legal Methods, Legal Systems and Research
3789:
3210:
Legal Problem Solving: Analysis, Research and Writing
3163:
Alexander, Larry (1989). "Constrained by Precedent".
2689:
List of landmark court decisions in the United States
2269:
1359:. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are
318:
309:
303:
297:
271:
4287:"R v Maginnis [1987] UKHL 4 (05 March 1987)"
2836:
2834:
2832:
2788:"The Human Rights Act and the doctrine of precedent"
2567:. He famously attacked the common law as "dog law":
2254:
1724:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1711:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1060:
Treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews.
982:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
786:
Judges are bound by the law of binding precedent in
393:
are each bound by their own previous decisions. The
327:
321:
288:
280:
274:
3312:"Binding Precedent and English Judicial Law-Making"
2629:There is much discussion about the virtue of using
1956:
Hilton v. South Carolina Public. Railway Commission
781:
315:
294:
268:
60:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
3978:
3976:
2614:A counter-argument (in favor of the advantages of
1068:
999:
971:
921:) is precedent or other legal writing that is not
840:
377:have been decided. Unlike most civil-law systems,
6111:Cabinet department / Office of the prime minister
4157:
4155:
3986:. Justia US Supreme Court Center. 14 January 1986
3984:"Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986), at 266"
3212:(3rd ed.). West Publishing. pp. 22â23.
2829:
1187:
364:
8370:
4465:"The Bombshell in the Clarence Thomas Biography"
4459:
3182:Project, China Guiding Cases (9 February 2016).
821:and principles of the common law such as in the
598:Federalism and parallel state and federal courts
3973:
3728:, 4th ed. (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2007), 37.
2550:
1552:
942:
487:
4152:
2174:London Street Tramways v London County Council
594:ânot simply by a different three-judge panel.
490:", not governed by any controlling precedent.
200:Generally speaking, a legal precedent may be:
167:is a third kind of law, on equal footing with
7151:
6615:
6036:
5962:Autonomous types of first-tier administration
4890:
4214:"R v G (2003) â recklessness in criminal law"
2343:Statutory interpretation in the United States
1854:
1288:
4168:Precedent in the United States Supreme Court
3744:Precedent in the United States Supreme Court
3514:
3442:
3400:
3305:
3303:
2414:
1606:Role of academics in civil law jurisdictions
1145:
4904:
4536:
4530:
3083:
3018:"14.5 Decisions of Federal Courts. | USCIS"
2609:
2205:, which had allowed the Lords to establish
1120:as a complete bar to recovery) by the 1992
631:Categories and classifications of precedent
7158:
7144:
6622:
6608:
6157:Assistant minister/Parliamentary secretary
6043:
6029:
4897:
4883:
3235:"Introduction To The Federal Court System"
1834:By the end of the eighteenth century, the
1767:Scholars have recently attempted to apply
507:
4629:
4268:(4th ed.), p. 25. London: Hodder Arnold.
4164:"The Dialectic of Stare Decisis Doctrine"
3740:"The Dialectic of Stare Decisis Doctrine"
3496:"So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'?"
3401:Landes, William; Posner, Richard (1976).
3309:
3300:
3162:
3001:Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
2864:
2862:
2785:
2558:
1602:or presumptively binding between courts.
1379:Learn how and when to remove this message
1316:of any statute that must be interpreted,
540:'s explanation of this principle is that
120:Learn how and when to remove this message
16:Rule established in an earlier legal case
8303:History of the American legal profession
4450:(June 2003) Accessed 8 January 2007 UTC.
4374:National Abortion Federation v. Gonzalez
3367:
3207:
2393:
1355:Relevant discussion may be found on the
699:judicial functions of the House of Lords
251:can be regarded as a notable exception.
135:is a principle or rule established in a
4662:
4604:
4543:. Oxford: Hart Publishing. p. 41.
4407:American Academy of Arts & Sciences
4403:"The Supreme Court in the 21st Century"
4193:"June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo"
4161:
3737:
3731:
3517:"Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Roe v. Wade"
3181:
3125:
2886:
2884:
2882:
2880:
2146:
2093:, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944)(Reed, S.F.).
909:
564:
195:"leading cases" or "landmark decisions"
8371:
4690:"Legal skills and debates in Scotland"
4498:
4301:
3905:Hayek, the Common Law, and Fluid Drive
3261:"Comparing Federal & State Courts"
2969:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
2859:
2402:
2375:Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
2031:Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey
1925:Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey
1718:lower court in the judicial hierarchy.
1028:
709:systems, precedent is not binding but
7139:
6603:
6024:
4878:
4865:
4570:
4564:
4389:Hilton vs. Carolina Pub. Rys. Comm'n.
3830:
3608:
3606:
3604:
3602:
3600:
3598:
3570:
3568:
3493:
3465:
3045:. Faculty.law.lsu.edu. Archived from
2151:The doctrine of binding precedent or
1662:
1216:Collateral estoppel, issue preclusion
968:is taken into account by the courts.
823:Universal Declaration of Human Rights
713:is taken into account by the courts.
512:
7112:
4632:"The Doctrine of Judicial Democracy"
4237:
4092:Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.
4080:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
2877:
2633:. Supporters of the system, such as
1669:Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.
1657:
1427:
1332:
1054:
987:
770:as to the meaning of a federal law.
635:
58:adding citations to reliable sources
29:
6629:
6116:Speaker / President of the assembly
4645:(1). Chicago: 19â35. Archived from
4166:. In Peters, Christopher J. (ed.).
3742:. In Peters, Christopher J. (ed.).
2786:Pattinson, Shaun D (1 March 2015).
2136:Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
2126:June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo
2067:("things said by the way"). As the
1796:During the formative period of the
1391:The different roles of case law in
1275:Splits among different areas of law
1257:
1137:requires federal courts sitting in
896:of Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in
695:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
615:the question to the state's courts.
395:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
13:
6204:International development minister
4446:qtd. by Jan Crawford Greenburg on
3901:
3768:Allegheny General Hospital v. NLRB
3648:
3595:
3565:
3519:. Associated Press. Archived from
3515:Benac, Nancy (13 September 2005).
3494:Rosen, Jeffrey (30 October 2005).
3445:"The Per Curiam Opinion of Steel:
2931:
2485:is not usually a doctrine used in
2270:Statutory interpretation in the UK
1732:stare decisis et non quieta movere
1435:is not usually a doctrine used in
1238:
578:United States federal court system
344:Stare decisis et non quieta movere
14:
8425:
7287:Restitution and unjust enrichment
6579:Government ministers by portfolio
6335:Ministry of Education and Culture
4711:
4672:University of Illinois Law Review
3705:LII / Legal Information Institute
3680:LII / Legal Information Institute
3562:, 34 Pepperdine L. Rev. 3 (2007).
3539:LII / Legal Information Institute
2846:LII / Legal Information Institute
2512:answered a question from Senator
2353:Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain
2318:of such a place but was actually
2255:Rules of statutory interpretation
2182:(one not applied, previously, in
1758:
768:conflict among the circuit courts
197:that are cited especially often.
8334:
8333:
8319:
7111:
7100:
7099:
6584:
6583:
6573:
6572:
4849:
4837:
4825:
4813:
4801:
4789:
4777:
4753:
4741:
4540:Retroactivity and the Common Law
4125:"FindLaw | Cases and Codes"
2003:Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
1982:, 553 U.S. 880, at 903 (2008): "
1477:jurisdictions give a sufficient
1337:
782:Binding precedent in English law
716:Binding precedent relies on the
357:The second principle, regarding
264:
139:that becomes authoritative to a
34:
8298:History of the legal profession
5907:Social and political philosophy
4682:
4656:
4623:
4598:
4492:
4453:
4433:
4421:
4395:
4380:
4377:, 437 F. 3d 278 (2d Cir. 2006).
4353:
4331:
4315:. 22 March 2015. Archived from
4279:
4258:
4231:
4206:
4185:
4139:
4117:
4103:Congressional Research Service,
4097:
4085:
4078:, 531 U.S. 425 (2001), quoting
4066:
3998:
3895:
3872:
3860:
3824:
3777:
3761:
3718:
3693:
3668:
3642:
3632:
3619:
3581:
3552:
3527:
3508:
3459:
3436:
3394:
3361:
3336:
3291:
3278:
3253:
3227:
3201:
3175:
3156:
3119:
3108:
3077:
3035:
3010:
2219:(1985), which was overruled by
2052:demands special justification."
1994:, 501 U.S. 808, at 834 (1991) (
1916:, 558 U.S. 310, at 378 (2010) (
1822:doctrine utterly impracticable.
1069:State attorney general opinions
972:Higher courts in other circuits
964:, precedent is not binding but
662:, etc.). Under the doctrine of
454:, or the published work of the
381:systems follow the doctrine of
45:needs additional citations for
8394:Legal doctrines and principles
6252:Ministry of trade and industry
5743:Political history of the world
4866:
4040:Congressional Research Service
3947:Congressional Research Service
3804:(2). Mohr Siebeck: 211. 2020.
3443:Hayward, Allison (2005â2006).
3208:Rombauer, Marjorie D. (1978).
2994:
2977:
2779:
2767:
2742:
2541:in originalist jurisprudence:
2452:
1779:
1774:
831:European Court of Human Rights
365:Case law in common-law systems
1:
6899:Needle and syringe programmes
6753:Universal access to education
6406:Ministry of religious affairs
4758:The dictionary definition of
4467:. Fulton County Daily Report.
4444:Senate Confirmation Hearings.
3616:, 17 Publius 133, 134 (1987).
3084:Martin, John H. (1972â1973).
2022:, 585 U.S. ___, No. 16-1466,
1702:In his "landmark dissent" in
1046:example, could not rely on a
558:superior courts of this state
5748:History of political thought
4605:Trotter, Michael H. (1997).
4244:. Universal Law Publishing.
4082:, 295 U. S. 602, 627 (1935).
3891:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001
3410:Journal of Law and Economics
3383:(2): 363â411. Archived from
3370:"Precedent, Super-Precedent"
3115:United States federal courts
2551:Advantages and disadvantages
1788:did not have or require the
1553:Mixed or bijuridical systems
1539:HĂśgsta fĂśrvaltningsdomstolen
1535:Supreme Administrative Court
1283:
254:
207:(if precedent is binding) /
7:
6982:Publicly funded health care
6421:Ministry of social security
6302:Ministry of water resources
6182:Ministry of foreign affairs
6051:Common types of government
4264:Martin, Jacqueline (2005).
4238:Saha, Tushar Kanti (2010).
4182:Available via SpringerLink.
3758:Available via SpringerLink.
3188:China Guiding Cases Project
2640:
2069:United States Supreme Court
1944:, 570 U.S. 99, 118 (2013) (
864:Planned Parenthood v. Casey
592:United States Supreme Court
538:Supreme Court of California
10:
8430:
8414:Judicial legal terminology
7965:International legal theory
7444:International slavery laws
7439:International human rights
7434:International criminal law
6454:Minister without portfolio
6416:Ministry of social affairs
6247:Ministry of infrastructure
4428:A Matter of Interpretation
4075:Green Co. v. United States
3676:"UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR"
3368:Sinclair, Michael (2007).
3286:Federal Appellate Practice
3126:Wrabley, Colin E. (2006).
2364:Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher
2258:
2063:of a case, rather than to
1855:United States legal system
1289:Matter of first impression
1242:
1219:
1194:
1149:
639:
451:Halsbury's Laws of England
18:
8313:
8290:
8180:
8018:Administration of justice
8003:
7912:
7803:
7682:
7584:
7305:
7173:
7095:
7039:
7007:National health insurance
6972:
6959:Supervised injection site
6869:
6819:
6766:
6660:
6637:
6568:
6505:Communications ministries
6462:
6446:
6310:
6265:
6217:
6165:
6129:
6063:
5991:
5984:
5843:
5785:
5733:
5726:
5694:
5687:
5627:
5620:
5555:
5546:
5429:
5422:
5336:
5205:
4992:
4954:National unity government
4916:
4872:
4732:Resources in your library
4630:McClellan, James (1969).
4537:Juratowitch, Ben (2008).
4149:, 519 U.S. 79, 84 (1996).
4147:O'Gilvie v. United States
4010:constitution.congress.gov
3810:10.1628/rabelsz-2020-0028
3574:Osvaldo Jordan, Comment,
3453:Cato Supreme Court Review
3310:Vong, David (1984â1985).
3043:"Mandatory v. Persuasive"
2776:, p. 1059 (5th ed. 1979).
2415:Structural considerations
2083:constitutional decisions.
1629:in France. Historically,
1517:The mixed systems of the
1466:binding on lower courts.
1462:, is recognized as being
1146:Nonprecedential decisions
984:as persuasive authority.
833:jurisprudence of courts (
554:District Courts of Appeal
405:the decision will stand.
7795:Basic structure doctrine
7645:Natural and legal rights
7526:Public international law
7002:Single-payer health care
6811:Universal basic services
6758:Universal basic services
6500:Climate change ministers
6401:Ministry of home affairs
5384:Environmental regulation
5190:Representative democracy
4266:The English Legal System
4127:. Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
3796:"Inhalt dieses Heftes".
2868:Adeleye, Gabriel et al.
2735:
2653:Case of first impression
2610:Agreement with precedent
2261:Statutory interpretation
1941:Alleyne v. United States
1320:of other jurisdictions,
943:case of first impression
827:purposive interpretation
652:metaphorically precedent
474:, province, division or
19:Not to be confused with
8384:Latin legal terminology
7975:Principle of typicality
7449:International trade law
7165:
6703:Public good (economics)
6589:Ministries by portfolio
6560:Public works ministries
6292:Ministry of electricity
6232:Ministry of the economy
6106:Office of the president
5449:Uncodified constitution
4974:Administrative division
4663:Berland, David (2011).
4571:Wacks, Raymond (2015).
4162:Starger, Colin (2013).
4110:13 January 2012 at the
3738:Starger, Colin (2013).
3655:legalresearch.usfca.edu
3377:George Mason Law Review
3284:Philip Allen Lacovara,
2465:. Both are directed at
2381:, 787â88 (Alaska 1996).
1619:judges; this is called
1596:jurisprudence constante
1575:Laws of the Philippines
1471:jurisprudence constante
1442:jurisprudence constante
1122:Tennessee Supreme Court
1118:contributory negligence
829:, for example applying
508:Dimensions of precedent
173:subordinate legislation
6525:Environment ministries
6495:Agriculture ministries
6490:Presidents of assembly
6485:Deputy prime ministers
4746:Quotations related to
4480:Cite journal requires
3072:40 Cal. 4th 1370, 1416
2928:
2774:Black's Law Dictionary
2574:
2559:Criticism of precedent
2548:
2528:
2419:In the United States,
2370:, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).
2110:and Associate Justice
2096:
1913:Citizens United v. FEC
1852:
1756:
1750:hat is the way of the
1744:
1720:
1700:
1114:comparative negligence
877:" now usually refers.
742:
697:, which took over the
562:
460:American Law Institute
8404:Persuasion techniques
7970:Principle of legality
7729:Delegated legislation
7429:Intellectual property
6851:Public infrastructure
6688:Public administration
6673:Free-culture movement
6520:Environment ministers
6426:Minister for Veterans
6297:Ministry of Petroleum
6257:Ministry of transport
6096:Deputy First Minister
6086:Deputy prime minister
5940:aspects of capitalism
5856:History of philosophy
5354:Unemployment benefits
5090:Military dictatorship
4368:State Oil Co. v. Khan
4362:State Oil Co. v. Khan
4042:(24 September 2018).
3949:(24 September 2018).
3558:Coale & Couture,
3348:www.cisg.law.pace.edu
2895:
2892:California Law Review
2594:The disadvantages of
2569:
2543:
2518:
2394:Practical application
2357:112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149
2292:. Another example is
2080:
1832:
1748:
1728:
1715:
1679:
1545:) or administrative (
1127:McIntyre v. Balentine
1096:and certain areas of
880:The concept of super-
737:
544:nder the doctrine of
542:
445:Corpus Juris Secundum
415:High Court of Justice
249:constitutional courts
177:delegated legislation
8188:Barristers' chambers
8130:Legal representation
8068:Justice of the peace
7414:Financial regulation
6515:Education ministries
6352:Information minister
6287:Environment minister
6187:Immigration minister
5874:Political ideologies
5150:Parliamentary system
3466:Maltz, Earl (1992).
3265:United States Courts
2907:Horizontal precedent
2704:Persuasive precedent
2658:Commanding precedent
2446:persuasive authority
2147:English legal system
1934:our own Constitution
1644:persuasive authority
1414:persuasive authority
1348:factual accuracy is
1322:persuasive authority
1007:Courts may consider
919:persuasive authority
915:Persuasive precedent
910:Persuasive precedent
576:For example, in the
565:Horizontal precedent
480:court of last resort
476:appellate department
359:persuasive precedent
239:systems adhere to a
183:(in US parlance)).
179:(in UK parlance) or
165:Common-law precedent
54:improve this article
8223:Election commission
7935:Expressive function
7464:Landlordâtenant law
7363:Consumer protection
7087:Public viewing area
6856:Public water system
6844:Municipal broadband
6801:Public broadcasting
6411:Ministry of science
6369:Ministry of justice
6362:Ministry of housing
6323:Ministry of culture
6237:Ministry of finance
6177:Ministry of defence
5996:Forms of government
5929:Conservatism navbox
5534:Legislative council
5359:National healthcare
5233:Christian democracy
5155:Presidential system
5010:Countries by system
4504:Virginia Law Review
4014:Library of Congress
3834:(28 October 2019),
3449:as Superprecedent?"
2985:"First Impressions"
2983:Coale & Dyrek,
2403:Judicial resistance
2337:Corkery v Carpenter
1314:legislative history
1299:primae impressionis
1229:collateral estoppel
1222:Collateral estoppel
1029:Dissenting opinions
1000:Statements made in
8181:Legal institutions
8048:Lawsuit/Litigation
8038:Dispute resolution
7843:Catholic canon law
7551:State of emergency
7514:Will and testament
7238:Law of obligations
7191:Constitutional law
7181:Administrative law
7052:Government auction
6738:Public procurement
6555:Interior ministers
6436:Minister for women
6391:Ministry of sports
6379:Ministry of labour
6374:Minister of labour
6345:Ministry of health
6330:Education minister
6280:Ministry of energy
6137:Secretary of state
6001:Types of democracy
5896:Political spectrum
5509:Legislative bodies
5464:Head of government
5389:Banking regulation
4949:Federal government
4939:Central government
4218:www.lawteacher.net
4054:on 16 October 2020
4048:EveryCRSReport.com
4020:on 31 October 2020
3961:on 16 October 2020
3955:EveryCRSReport.com
3918:on 24 January 2015
3701:"issue preclusion"
3612:Thomas R. Morris,
3523:on 31 August 2012.
3501:The New York Times
3144:on 17 October 2016
3049:on 25 October 2012
2989:Appellate Advocate
2901:vertical precedent
2874:, page 371 (1999).
2807:10.1111/lest.12049
2699:Memorandum opinion
2191:Practice Statement
2117:Payne v. Tennessee
2090:Smith v. Allwright
2011:Smith v. Allwright
1991:Payne v. Tennessee
1979:Taylor v. Sturgell
1971:Vasquez v. Hillery
1963:Payne v. Tennessee
1885:Vasquez v. Hillery
1861:judicial decisions
1663:Court formulations
1191:, claim preclusion
960:systems, as under
899:The New York Times
513:Vertical precedent
8363:
8362:
8023:Constitutionalism
7945:Law and economics
7783:Act of parliament
7521:Product liability
7474:Legal archaeology
7399:Environmental law
7393:Entertainment law
7233:International law
7133:
7132:
7127:
7126:
6954:Public university
6934:Public open space
6879:Drinking fountain
6839:Telecommunication
6597:
6596:
6545:Health ministries
6540:Forest ministries
6535:Foreign ministers
6530:Finance ministers
6510:Defence ministers
6431:Ministry of women
6386:Regional minister
6268:natural resources
6242:Industry minister
6227:Commerce minister
6197:Interior ministry
6192:Interior minister
6168:foreign affairs /
6142:Minister of state
6018:
6017:
6014:
6013:
6006:Political parties
5885:Political culture
5810:International law
5781:
5780:
5773:U.S. Constitution
5722:
5721:
5704:Political science
5683:
5682:
5655:Political parties
5616:
5615:
5542:
5541:
5258:Constitutionalism
4969:County government
4844:Freedom of speech
4718:Library resources
4309:"The Golden Rule"
4177:978-94-007-7950-1
3753:978-94-007-7950-1
3476:Notre Dame L. Rev
3241:. 7 November 2014
3068:People v. Leonard
2618:) is that if the
2409:binding precedent
2112:Thurgood Marshall
2108:William Rehnquist
2046:Arizona v. Rumsey
2036:plurality opinion
1658:Critical analysis
1577:, and the law of
1571:South-African law
1561:systems, such as
1428:Civil law systems
1389:
1388:
1381:
1303:binding authority
1139:diversity actions
1094:product liability
1055:Secondary sources
988:Horizontal courts
923:binding precedent
788:England and Wales
660:binding authority
648:binding precedent
636:Binding precedent
521:court system has
130:
129:
122:
104:
8421:
8338:
8337:
8336:
8324:
8323:
8147:Question of fact
8028:Criminal justice
7358:Construction law
7353:Conflict of laws
7318:Agricultural law
7160:
7153:
7146:
7137:
7136:
7115:
7114:
7103:
7102:
7014:Social insurance
6861:Waste management
6829:Electric utility
6806:Public transport
6723:Public ownership
6642:Municipalization
6624:
6617:
6610:
6601:
6600:
6587:
6586:
6576:
6575:
6396:Tourism minister
6357:Housing minister
6318:Culture minister
6045:
6038:
6031:
6022:
6021:
5989:
5988:
5977:
5973:World government
5971:
5966:
5960:
5955:
5949:
5944:
5938:
5933:
5927:
5922:
5916:
5911:
5905:
5900:
5894:
5889:
5883:
5878:
5872:
5820:World government
5731:
5730:
5692:
5691:
5675:Environmentalism
5625:
5624:
5553:
5552:
5427:
5426:
5364:Public education
5344:Social insurance
5278:Environmentalism
5248:Communitarianism
5223:Authoritarianism
5185:Direct democracy
4964:Local government
4899:
4892:
4885:
4876:
4875:
4863:
4862:
4854:
4853:
4842:
4841:
4840:
4830:
4829:
4828:
4818:
4817:
4806:
4805:
4804:
4794:
4793:
4792:
4782:
4781:
4773:
4757:
4745:
4705:
4704:
4702:
4700:
4686:
4680:
4679:
4669:
4660:
4654:
4653:
4652:on 1 March 2017.
4651:
4636:
4627:
4621:
4620:
4602:
4596:
4595:
4593:
4591:
4568:
4562:
4561:
4559:
4557:
4534:
4528:
4527:
4496:
4490:
4489:
4483:
4478:
4476:
4468:
4461:Ringel, Jonathan
4457:
4451:
4440:Thomas, Clarence
4437:
4431:
4425:
4419:
4418:
4416:
4414:
4399:
4393:
4384:
4378:
4357:
4351:
4350:
4348:
4346:
4335:
4329:
4328:
4326:
4324:
4319:on 29 March 2018
4305:
4299:
4298:
4296:
4294:
4283:
4277:
4262:
4256:
4255:
4235:
4229:
4228:
4226:
4224:
4210:
4204:
4203:
4201:
4199:
4189:
4183:
4181:
4159:
4150:
4143:
4137:
4136:
4134:
4132:
4121:
4115:
4101:
4095:
4089:
4083:
4070:
4064:
4063:
4061:
4059:
4050:. Archived from
4036:
4030:
4029:
4027:
4025:
4016:. Archived from
4002:
3996:
3995:
3993:
3991:
3980:
3971:
3970:
3968:
3966:
3957:. Archived from
3943:
3928:
3927:
3925:
3923:
3917:
3910:
3899:
3893:
3876:
3870:
3864:
3858:
3857:
3852:
3850:
3840:
3828:
3822:
3821:
3793:
3787:
3781:
3775:
3765:
3759:
3757:
3735:
3729:
3722:
3716:
3715:
3713:
3711:
3697:
3691:
3690:
3688:
3686:
3672:
3666:
3665:
3663:
3661:
3646:
3640:
3636:
3630:
3623:
3617:
3610:
3593:
3585:
3579:
3572:
3563:
3556:
3550:
3549:
3547:
3545:
3531:
3525:
3524:
3512:
3506:
3505:
3491:
3463:
3457:
3456:
3447:Buckley v. Valeo
3440:
3434:
3433:
3407:
3398:
3392:
3391:
3389:
3374:
3365:
3359:
3358:
3356:
3354:
3340:
3334:
3333:
3331:
3329:
3316:
3307:
3298:
3295:
3289:
3287:
3282:
3276:
3275:
3273:
3271:
3257:
3251:
3250:
3248:
3246:
3231:
3225:
3223:
3205:
3199:
3198:
3196:
3194:
3179:
3173:
3172:
3160:
3154:
3153:
3151:
3149:
3143:
3137:. Archived from
3132:
3123:
3117:
3112:
3106:
3105:
3103:
3101:
3090:Texas Law Review
3081:
3075:
3065:
3059:
3058:
3056:
3054:
3039:
3033:
3032:
3030:
3028:
3014:
3008:
2998:
2992:
2981:
2975:
2974:
2968:
2960:
2958:
2956:
2950:
2944:. Archived from
2943:
2935:
2929:
2926:
2888:
2875:
2866:
2857:
2856:
2854:
2852:
2838:
2827:
2826:
2792:
2783:
2777:
2771:
2765:
2764:
2762:
2760:
2746:
2714:Question of fact
2678:Law of Citations
2673:First impression
2526:
2388:separate article
2169:UK Supreme Court
2094:
1676:
1531:HĂśgsta domstolen
1519:Nordic countries
1469:The doctrine of
1460:Council of State
1422:legal positivism
1384:
1377:
1373:
1370:
1364:
1361:reliably sourced
1341:
1340:
1333:
1258:Splits, tensions
1233:issue preclusion
1210:claim preclusion
1163:Federal Appendix
811:conflict of laws
582:court of appeals
527:appellate courts
488:first impression
425:starting in the
337:
336:
333:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
312:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
286:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
241:legal positivism
125:
118:
114:
111:
105:
103:
62:
38:
30:
8429:
8428:
8424:
8423:
8422:
8420:
8419:
8418:
8399:Legal reasoning
8369:
8368:
8366:
8364:
8359:
8332:
8318:
8309:
8286:
8277:Political party
8250:Legal education
8238:Law enforcement
8218:Court of equity
8176:
8152:Question of law
8105:Practice of law
8085:Judicial review
7999:
7950:Legal formalism
7930:Comparative law
7925:Contract theory
7908:
7828:Legal pluralism
7799:
7788:Act of Congress
7712:Executive order
7678:
7580:
7499:Nationality law
7424:Immigration law
7348:Competition law
7301:
7169:
7164:
7134:
7129:
7128:
7123:
7091:
7077:Public security
7067:Public offering
7035:
7024:Social security
6974:Social services
6968:
6924:Public hospital
6919:Public computer
6914:Public bookcase
6865:
6815:
6784:Law enforcement
6779:Fire department
6762:
6713:Public interest
6656:
6652:Progressive tax
6647:Nationalization
6633:
6631:Public services
6628:
6598:
6593:
6564:
6480:Prime ministers
6475:Vice presidents
6458:
6442:
6340:Health minister
6306:
6275:Energy minister
6267:
6261:
6219:
6213:
6169:
6167:
6161:
6147:Deputy minister
6125:
6059:
6049:
6019:
6010:
5980:
5975:
5969:
5964:
5958:
5953:
5951:Western culture
5947:
5942:
5936:
5931:
5925:
5920:
5914:
5909:
5903:
5898:
5892:
5887:
5881:
5876:
5870:
5839:
5777:
5718:
5699:Fields of study
5679:
5660:Advocacy groups
5612:
5548:
5538:
5418:
5414:Street cleaning
5394:Food inspection
5349:Law enforcement
5332:
5201:
5135:Totalitarianism
4988:
4912:
4903:
4868:
4860:
4848:
4838:
4836:
4826:
4824:
4812:
4802:
4800:
4790:
4788:
4776:
4768:
4738:
4737:
4736:
4726:
4725:
4721:
4714:
4709:
4708:
4698:
4696:
4688:
4687:
4683:
4667:
4661:
4657:
4649:
4634:
4628:
4624:
4617:
4603:
4599:
4589:
4587:
4585:
4569:
4565:
4555:
4553:
4551:
4535:
4531:
4516:10.2307/1073894
4497:
4493:
4481:
4479:
4470:
4469:
4458:
4454:
4438:
4434:
4426:
4422:
4412:
4410:
4401:
4400:
4396:
4385:
4381:
4358:
4354:
4344:
4342:
4337:
4336:
4332:
4322:
4320:
4307:
4306:
4302:
4292:
4290:
4285:
4284:
4280:
4263:
4259:
4252:
4236:
4232:
4222:
4220:
4212:
4211:
4207:
4197:
4195:
4191:
4190:
4186:
4178:
4160:
4153:
4144:
4140:
4130:
4128:
4123:
4122:
4118:
4112:Wayback Machine
4102:
4098:
4090:
4086:
4071:
4067:
4057:
4055:
4037:
4033:
4023:
4021:
4004:
4003:
3999:
3989:
3987:
3982:
3981:
3974:
3964:
3962:
3944:
3931:
3921:
3919:
3915:
3908:
3900:
3896:
3883:Social Networks
3879:James H. Fowler
3877:
3873:
3865:
3861:
3848:
3846:
3838:
3829:
3825:
3795:
3794:
3790:
3782:
3778:
3766:
3762:
3754:
3736:
3732:
3724:Brian A. Blum,
3723:
3719:
3709:
3707:
3699:
3698:
3694:
3684:
3682:
3674:
3673:
3669:
3659:
3657:
3647:
3643:
3637:
3633:
3624:
3620:
3611:
3596:
3586:
3582:
3573:
3566:
3557:
3553:
3543:
3541:
3535:"stare decisis"
3533:
3532:
3528:
3513:
3509:
3464:
3460:
3441:
3437:
3416:(2): 249â307 .
3405:
3399:
3395:
3390:on 4 July 2007.
3387:
3372:
3366:
3362:
3352:
3350:
3342:
3341:
3337:
3327:
3325:
3314:
3308:
3301:
3296:
3292:
3285:
3283:
3279:
3269:
3267:
3259:
3258:
3254:
3244:
3242:
3239:www.justice.gov
3233:
3232:
3228:
3220:
3206:
3202:
3192:
3190:
3180:
3176:
3161:
3157:
3147:
3145:
3141:
3135:m.reedsmith.com
3130:
3124:
3120:
3113:
3109:
3099:
3097:
3082:
3078:
3066:
3062:
3052:
3050:
3041:
3040:
3036:
3026:
3024:
3016:
3015:
3011:
2999:
2995:
2982:
2978:
2962:
2961:
2954:
2952:
2948:
2941:
2939:"Archived copy"
2937:
2936:
2932:
2927:
2924:
2889:
2878:
2867:
2860:
2850:
2848:
2842:"stare decisis"
2840:
2839:
2830:
2790:
2784:
2780:
2772:
2768:
2758:
2756:
2748:
2747:
2743:
2738:
2733:
2724:Ratio decidendi
2680:(Roman concept)
2643:
2612:
2561:
2553:
2532:Clarence Thomas
2527:
2525:
2510:Clarence Thomas
2501:; whenever the
2455:
2417:
2405:
2396:
2345:
2272:
2263:
2257:
2248:
2231:Anderton v Ryan
2216:Anderton v Ryan
2161:
2149:
2095:
2087:
2059:applies to the
1857:
1782:
1777:
1761:
1672:
1665:
1660:
1654:jurisdictions.
1608:
1555:
1504:ratio decidendi
1493:ratio decidendi
1488:ratio decidendi
1479:ratio decidendi
1456:Cassation Court
1430:
1403:ratio decidendi
1385:
1374:
1368:
1365:
1354:
1346:This section's
1342:
1338:
1331:
1291:
1286:
1277:
1268:
1260:
1252:law of the case
1247:
1245:Law of the case
1241:
1239:Law of the case
1224:
1218:
1199:
1193:
1181:
1154:
1148:
1084:
1071:
1062:
1057:
1031:
1019:ratio decidendi
1005:
994:appellate court
990:
974:
912:
847:
784:
776:legal certainty
718:legal principle
644:
642:Law of the case
638:
633:
600:
567:
525:, intermediate
515:
510:
496:ratio decidendi
419:Court of Appeal
417:, later of the
413:, first of the
391:Court of Appeal
367:
314:
287:
267:
263:
257:
245:judicial review
126:
115:
109:
106:
63:
61:
51:
39:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
8427:
8417:
8416:
8411:
8409:Sources of law
8406:
8401:
8396:
8391:
8389:Legal citation
8386:
8381:
8361:
8360:
8358:
8357:
8350:
8343:
8329:
8326:Law portal
8314:
8311:
8310:
8308:
8307:
8306:
8305:
8294:
8292:
8288:
8287:
8285:
8284:
8279:
8274:
8269:
8264:
8259:
8258:
8257:
8247:
8246:
8245:
8235:
8230:
8225:
8220:
8215:
8210:
8205:
8200:
8195:
8190:
8184:
8182:
8178:
8177:
8175:
8174:
8169:
8164:
8162:Trial advocacy
8159:
8154:
8149:
8144:
8143:
8142:
8137:
8132:
8127:
8122:
8117:
8112:
8102:
8097:
8092:
8087:
8082:
8077:
8076:
8075:
8070:
8060:
8055:
8050:
8045:
8040:
8035:
8030:
8025:
8020:
8015:
8009:
8007:
8001:
8000:
7998:
7997:
7992:
7987:
7982:
7977:
7972:
7967:
7962:
7957:
7952:
7947:
7942:
7937:
7932:
7927:
7922:
7916:
7914:
7910:
7909:
7907:
7906:
7901:
7896:
7891:
7886:
7885:
7884:
7874:
7873:
7872:
7867:
7862:
7857:
7852:
7847:
7846:
7845:
7830:
7825:
7820:
7815:
7809:
7807:
7801:
7800:
7798:
7797:
7792:
7791:
7790:
7785:
7780:
7770:
7769:
7768:
7758:
7753:
7748:
7743:
7742:
7741:
7736:
7731:
7721:
7720:
7719:
7714:
7709:
7699:
7694:
7692:Ballot measure
7688:
7686:
7680:
7679:
7677:
7676:
7671:
7669:Legal treatise
7666:
7665:
7664:
7659:
7649:
7648:
7647:
7637:
7635:Letters patent
7632:
7627:
7626:
7625:
7615:
7610:
7605:
7596:
7590:
7588:
7586:Sources of law
7582:
7581:
7579:
7578:
7573:
7571:Unenforced law
7568:
7563:
7558:
7553:
7548:
7543:
7538:
7533:
7528:
7523:
7518:
7517:
7516:
7511:
7501:
7496:
7491:
7486:
7481:
7476:
7471:
7466:
7461:
7456:
7451:
7446:
7441:
7436:
7431:
7426:
7421:
7416:
7411:
7406:
7401:
7396:
7390:
7385:
7380:
7375:
7370:
7365:
7360:
7355:
7350:
7345:
7343:Commercial law
7340:
7335:
7330:
7325:
7320:
7315:
7309:
7307:
7303:
7302:
7300:
7299:
7294:
7289:
7284:
7283:
7282:
7272:
7267:
7262:
7261:
7260:
7255:
7245:
7240:
7235:
7230:
7225:
7220:
7215:
7210:
7209:
7208:
7198:
7193:
7188:
7183:
7177:
7175:
7171:
7170:
7163:
7162:
7155:
7148:
7140:
7131:
7130:
7125:
7124:
7122:
7121:
7109:
7096:
7093:
7092:
7090:
7089:
7084:
7079:
7074:
7069:
7064:
7062:Public holiday
7059:
7054:
7049:
7043:
7041:
7037:
7036:
7034:
7033:
7031:Youth services
7028:
7027:
7026:
7021:
7019:Social pension
7011:
7010:
7009:
6999:
6994:
6989:
6987:Public housing
6984:
6978:
6976:
6970:
6969:
6967:
6966:
6961:
6956:
6951:
6946:
6941:
6936:
6931:
6929:Public library
6926:
6921:
6916:
6911:
6906:
6901:
6896:
6894:Infrastructure
6891:
6889:Free education
6886:
6881:
6875:
6873:
6867:
6866:
6864:
6863:
6858:
6853:
6848:
6847:
6846:
6836:
6831:
6825:
6823:
6821:Public utility
6817:
6816:
6814:
6813:
6808:
6803:
6798:
6797:
6796:
6794:Savings system
6789:Postal service
6786:
6781:
6776:
6770:
6768:
6767:Basic services
6764:
6763:
6761:
6760:
6755:
6750:
6745:
6740:
6735:
6730:
6725:
6720:
6715:
6710:
6705:
6700:
6695:
6690:
6685:
6683:Product sample
6680:
6678:Free newspaper
6675:
6670:
6664:
6662:
6658:
6657:
6655:
6654:
6649:
6644:
6638:
6635:
6634:
6627:
6626:
6619:
6612:
6604:
6595:
6594:
6592:
6591:
6581:
6569:
6566:
6565:
6563:
6562:
6557:
6552:
6542:
6537:
6532:
6527:
6522:
6517:
6512:
6507:
6502:
6497:
6492:
6487:
6482:
6477:
6472:
6466:
6464:
6460:
6459:
6457:
6456:
6450:
6448:
6444:
6443:
6441:
6440:
6439:
6438:
6428:
6423:
6418:
6413:
6408:
6403:
6398:
6393:
6388:
6383:
6382:
6381:
6371:
6366:
6365:
6364:
6354:
6349:
6348:
6347:
6337:
6332:
6327:
6326:
6325:
6314:
6312:
6308:
6307:
6305:
6304:
6299:
6294:
6289:
6284:
6283:
6282:
6271:
6269:
6266:Environment /
6263:
6262:
6260:
6259:
6254:
6249:
6244:
6239:
6234:
6229:
6223:
6221:
6220:infrastructure
6215:
6214:
6212:
6211:
6206:
6201:
6200:
6199:
6189:
6184:
6179:
6173:
6171:
6163:
6162:
6160:
6159:
6154:
6152:Undersecretary
6149:
6144:
6139:
6133:
6131:
6127:
6126:
6124:
6123:
6118:
6113:
6108:
6103:
6098:
6093:
6091:First minister
6088:
6083:
6081:Prime minister
6078:
6076:Vice president
6073:
6067:
6065:
6061:
6060:
6048:
6047:
6040:
6033:
6025:
6016:
6015:
6012:
6011:
6009:
6008:
6003:
5998:
5992:
5986:
5982:
5981:
5979:
5978:
5967:
5956:
5945:
5934:
5923:
5912:
5901:
5890:
5879:
5868:
5863:
5858:
5853:
5847:
5845:
5841:
5840:
5838:
5837:
5832:
5830:European Union
5827:
5825:United Nations
5822:
5817:
5812:
5807:
5802:
5797:
5789:
5787:
5783:
5782:
5779:
5778:
5776:
5775:
5770:
5765:
5760:
5755:
5750:
5745:
5740:
5734:
5728:
5724:
5723:
5720:
5719:
5717:
5716:
5711:
5709:Urban planning
5706:
5701:
5695:
5689:
5685:
5684:
5681:
5680:
5678:
5677:
5672:
5667:
5662:
5657:
5652:
5647:
5642:
5637:
5628:
5622:
5618:
5617:
5614:
5613:
5611:
5610:
5605:
5597:
5592:
5587:
5582:
5577:
5572:
5567:
5562:
5556:
5550:
5544:
5543:
5540:
5539:
5537:
5536:
5531:
5526:
5521:
5516:
5511:
5506:
5501:
5496:
5491:
5486:
5481:
5479:Prime minister
5476:
5471:
5466:
5461:
5456:
5451:
5446:
5441:
5436:
5430:
5424:
5420:
5419:
5417:
5416:
5411:
5406:
5404:Traffic lights
5401:
5396:
5391:
5386:
5381:
5376:
5371:
5366:
5361:
5356:
5351:
5346:
5340:
5338:
5334:
5333:
5331:
5330:
5325:
5323:Theoreticians:
5320:
5315:
5310:
5308:Fundamentalism
5305:
5300:
5295:
5290:
5285:
5280:
5275:
5273:Egalitarianism
5270:
5265:
5260:
5255:
5250:
5245:
5240:
5235:
5230:
5225:
5220:
5215:
5209:
5207:
5203:
5202:
5200:
5199:
5198:
5197:
5192:
5187:
5182:
5177:
5172:
5167:
5162:
5152:
5147:
5138:
5137:
5132:
5127:
5122:
5117:
5112:
5107:
5102:
5097:
5092:
5087:
5082:
5077:
5072:
5067:
5062:
5057:
5052:
5047:
5042:
5037:
5032:
5027:
5022:
5017:
5012:
5007:
5002:
4996:
4994:
4990:
4989:
4987:
4986:
4981:
4976:
4971:
4966:
4961:
4956:
4951:
4946:
4941:
4936:
4931:
4926:
4920:
4918:
4914:
4913:
4902:
4901:
4894:
4887:
4879:
4873:
4870:
4869:
4859:
4858:
4846:
4834:
4822:
4810:
4798:
4786:
4766:
4765:
4751:
4735:
4734:
4728:
4727:
4716:
4715:
4713:
4712:External links
4710:
4707:
4706:
4681:
4655:
4622:
4615:
4597:
4583:
4563:
4549:
4529:
4491:
4482:|journal=
4452:
4432:
4420:
4394:
4379:
4352:
4330:
4300:
4278:
4257:
4250:
4230:
4205:
4184:
4176:
4151:
4138:
4116:
4096:
4084:
4065:
4031:
3997:
3972:
3929:
3902:Hasnas, John.
3894:
3871:
3859:
3832:Hodge, Patrick
3823:
3788:
3776:
3760:
3752:
3730:
3717:
3692:
3667:
3649:Shafer, John.
3641:
3639:government.â).
3631:
3618:
3594:
3580:
3564:
3551:
3526:
3507:
3458:
3435:
3422:10.1086/466868
3393:
3360:
3335:
3299:
3290:
3277:
3252:
3226:
3218:
3200:
3174:
3165:S. Cal. L. Rev
3155:
3118:
3107:
3076:
3060:
3034:
3009:
3005:57 Cal. 2d 450
2993:
2991:(Winter 2012).
2976:
2930:
2922:
2876:
2858:
2828:
2801:(1): 142â164.
2778:
2766:
2754:Dictionary.com
2740:
2739:
2737:
2734:
2732:
2731:
2726:
2721:
2716:
2711:
2709:Precedent book
2706:
2701:
2696:
2691:
2686:
2681:
2675:
2670:
2665:
2660:
2655:
2650:
2644:
2642:
2639:
2611:
2608:
2592:
2591:
2590:jurisdictions.
2587:
2565:Jeremy Bentham
2560:
2557:
2552:
2549:
2523:
2514:Strom Thurmond
2495:Constitutional
2479:Antonin Scalia
2454:
2451:
2416:
2413:
2404:
2401:
2395:
2392:
2383:
2382:
2371:
2360:
2344:
2341:
2312:Adler v George
2271:
2268:
2259:Main article:
2256:
2253:
2247:
2244:
2165:House of Lords
2160:
2157:
2148:
2145:
2085:
2054:
2053:
2043:
2027:
2015:
2007:
1999:
1987:
1975:
1967:
1959:
1953:
1937:
1921:
1856:
1853:
1824:
1823:
1816:
1813:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1801:
1784:Early English
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1769:network theory
1760:
1759:Academic study
1757:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1626:Recueil Dalloz
1607:
1604:
1554:
1551:
1429:
1426:
1387:
1386:
1345:
1343:
1336:
1330:
1327:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1282:
1276:
1273:
1267:
1264:
1259:
1256:
1243:Main article:
1240:
1237:
1220:Main article:
1217:
1214:
1195:Main article:
1192:
1186:
1180:
1174:
1150:Main article:
1147:
1144:
1083:
1080:
1070:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1030:
1027:
1004:
998:
989:
986:
978:district court
973:
970:
911:
908:
858:Richard Posner
846:
839:
807:
806:
803:
783:
780:
637:
634:
632:
629:
625:forum shopping
621:
620:
616:
599:
596:
566:
563:
514:
511:
509:
506:
456:Law Commission
366:
363:
355:
354:
351:
256:
253:
233:
232:
226:
220:
212:
181:regulatory law
128:
127:
42:
40:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
8426:
8415:
8412:
8410:
8407:
8405:
8402:
8400:
8397:
8395:
8392:
8390:
8387:
8385:
8382:
8380:
8377:
8376:
8374:
8367:
8356:
8355:
8351:
8349:
8348:
8344:
8342:
8341:
8330:
8328:
8327:
8322:
8316:
8315:
8312:
8304:
8301:
8300:
8299:
8296:
8295:
8293:
8289:
8283:
8280:
8278:
8275:
8273:
8270:
8268:
8265:
8263:
8260:
8256:
8253:
8252:
8251:
8248:
8244:
8241:
8240:
8239:
8236:
8234:
8231:
8229:
8226:
8224:
8221:
8219:
8216:
8214:
8211:
8209:
8208:Civil society
8206:
8204:
8201:
8199:
8196:
8194:
8191:
8189:
8186:
8185:
8183:
8179:
8173:
8170:
8168:
8167:Trier of fact
8165:
8163:
8160:
8158:
8155:
8153:
8150:
8148:
8145:
8141:
8138:
8136:
8133:
8131:
8128:
8126:
8123:
8121:
8118:
8116:
8113:
8111:
8108:
8107:
8106:
8103:
8101:
8098:
8096:
8093:
8091:
8088:
8086:
8083:
8081:
8078:
8074:
8071:
8069:
8066:
8065:
8064:
8061:
8059:
8056:
8054:
8053:Legal opinion
8051:
8049:
8046:
8044:
8041:
8039:
8036:
8034:
8033:Court-martial
8031:
8029:
8026:
8024:
8021:
8019:
8016:
8014:
8011:
8010:
8008:
8006:
8005:Jurisprudence
8002:
7996:
7993:
7991:
7988:
7986:
7983:
7981:
7978:
7976:
7973:
7971:
7968:
7966:
7963:
7961:
7958:
7956:
7953:
7951:
7948:
7946:
7943:
7941:
7938:
7936:
7933:
7931:
7928:
7926:
7923:
7921:
7918:
7917:
7915:
7911:
7905:
7902:
7900:
7897:
7895:
7894:Statutory law
7892:
7890:
7889:Socialist law
7887:
7883:
7882:Byzantine law
7880:
7879:
7878:
7875:
7871:
7868:
7866:
7863:
7861:
7858:
7856:
7853:
7851:
7848:
7844:
7841:
7840:
7839:
7836:
7835:
7834:
7833:Religious law
7831:
7829:
7826:
7824:
7821:
7819:
7816:
7814:
7811:
7810:
7808:
7806:
7805:Legal systems
7802:
7796:
7793:
7789:
7786:
7784:
7781:
7779:
7776:
7775:
7774:
7773:Statutory law
7771:
7767:
7764:
7763:
7762:
7759:
7757:
7754:
7752:
7749:
7747:
7744:
7740:
7737:
7735:
7732:
7730:
7727:
7726:
7725:
7722:
7718:
7715:
7713:
7710:
7708:
7705:
7704:
7703:
7700:
7698:
7695:
7693:
7690:
7689:
7687:
7685:
7681:
7675:
7672:
7670:
7667:
7663:
7660:
7658:
7655:
7654:
7653:
7650:
7646:
7643:
7642:
7641:
7638:
7636:
7633:
7631:
7628:
7624:
7621:
7620:
7619:
7616:
7614:
7611:
7609:
7606:
7604:
7603:Statutory law
7600:
7597:
7595:
7592:
7591:
7589:
7587:
7583:
7577:
7574:
7572:
7569:
7567:
7564:
7562:
7561:Transport law
7559:
7557:
7554:
7552:
7549:
7547:
7544:
7542:
7539:
7537:
7534:
7532:
7529:
7527:
7524:
7522:
7519:
7515:
7512:
7510:
7507:
7506:
7505:
7502:
7500:
7497:
7495:
7492:
7490:
7487:
7485:
7482:
7480:
7479:Legal fiction
7477:
7475:
7472:
7470:
7467:
7465:
7462:
7460:
7457:
7455:
7452:
7450:
7447:
7445:
7442:
7440:
7437:
7435:
7432:
7430:
7427:
7425:
7422:
7420:
7417:
7415:
7412:
7410:
7409:Financial law
7407:
7405:
7402:
7400:
7397:
7394:
7391:
7389:
7386:
7384:
7381:
7379:
7376:
7374:
7371:
7369:
7368:Corporate law
7366:
7364:
7361:
7359:
7356:
7354:
7351:
7349:
7346:
7344:
7341:
7339:
7336:
7334:
7331:
7329:
7326:
7324:
7321:
7319:
7316:
7314:
7311:
7310:
7308:
7304:
7298:
7295:
7293:
7292:Statutory law
7290:
7288:
7285:
7281:
7278:
7277:
7276:
7273:
7271:
7268:
7266:
7263:
7259:
7256:
7254:
7251:
7250:
7249:
7246:
7244:
7241:
7239:
7236:
7234:
7231:
7229:
7226:
7224:
7221:
7219:
7216:
7214:
7211:
7207:
7204:
7203:
7202:
7199:
7197:
7194:
7192:
7189:
7187:
7184:
7182:
7179:
7178:
7176:
7174:Core subjects
7172:
7168:
7161:
7156:
7154:
7149:
7147:
7142:
7141:
7138:
7120:
7119:
7110:
7108:
7107:
7098:
7097:
7094:
7088:
7085:
7083:
7080:
7078:
7075:
7073:
7072:Public sector
7070:
7068:
7065:
7063:
7060:
7058:
7055:
7053:
7050:
7048:
7045:
7044:
7042:
7038:
7032:
7029:
7025:
7022:
7020:
7017:
7016:
7015:
7012:
7008:
7005:
7004:
7003:
7000:
6998:
6997:Job guarantee
6995:
6993:
6990:
6988:
6985:
6983:
6980:
6979:
6977:
6975:
6971:
6965:
6962:
6960:
6957:
6955:
6952:
6950:
6949:Public toilet
6947:
6945:
6942:
6940:
6939:Public school
6937:
6935:
6932:
6930:
6927:
6925:
6922:
6920:
6917:
6915:
6912:
6910:
6907:
6905:
6902:
6900:
6897:
6895:
6892:
6890:
6887:
6885:
6882:
6880:
6877:
6876:
6874:
6872:
6868:
6862:
6859:
6857:
6854:
6852:
6849:
6845:
6842:
6841:
6840:
6837:
6835:
6834:Oil & gas
6832:
6830:
6827:
6826:
6824:
6822:
6818:
6812:
6809:
6807:
6804:
6802:
6799:
6795:
6792:
6791:
6790:
6787:
6785:
6782:
6780:
6777:
6775:
6774:Civil service
6772:
6771:
6769:
6765:
6759:
6756:
6754:
6751:
6749:
6746:
6744:
6741:
6739:
6736:
6734:
6733:Public rights
6731:
6729:
6728:Public policy
6726:
6724:
6721:
6719:
6716:
6714:
6711:
6709:
6708:Public health
6706:
6704:
6701:
6699:
6698:Public domain
6696:
6694:
6691:
6689:
6686:
6684:
6681:
6679:
6676:
6674:
6671:
6669:
6666:
6665:
6663:
6659:
6653:
6650:
6648:
6645:
6643:
6640:
6639:
6636:
6632:
6625:
6620:
6618:
6613:
6611:
6606:
6605:
6602:
6590:
6582:
6580:
6571:
6570:
6567:
6561:
6558:
6556:
6553:
6550:
6549:mental health
6546:
6543:
6541:
6538:
6536:
6533:
6531:
6528:
6526:
6523:
6521:
6518:
6516:
6513:
6511:
6508:
6506:
6503:
6501:
6498:
6496:
6493:
6491:
6488:
6486:
6483:
6481:
6478:
6476:
6473:
6471:
6468:
6467:
6465:
6461:
6455:
6452:
6451:
6449:
6445:
6437:
6434:
6433:
6432:
6429:
6427:
6424:
6422:
6419:
6417:
6414:
6412:
6409:
6407:
6404:
6402:
6399:
6397:
6394:
6392:
6389:
6387:
6384:
6380:
6377:
6376:
6375:
6372:
6370:
6367:
6363:
6360:
6359:
6358:
6355:
6353:
6350:
6346:
6343:
6342:
6341:
6338:
6336:
6333:
6331:
6328:
6324:
6321:
6320:
6319:
6316:
6315:
6313:
6309:
6303:
6300:
6298:
6295:
6293:
6290:
6288:
6285:
6281:
6278:
6277:
6276:
6273:
6272:
6270:
6264:
6258:
6255:
6253:
6250:
6248:
6245:
6243:
6240:
6238:
6235:
6233:
6230:
6228:
6225:
6224:
6222:
6216:
6210:
6207:
6205:
6202:
6198:
6195:
6194:
6193:
6190:
6188:
6185:
6183:
6180:
6178:
6175:
6174:
6172:
6170:public safety
6164:
6158:
6155:
6153:
6150:
6148:
6145:
6143:
6140:
6138:
6135:
6134:
6132:
6128:
6122:
6119:
6117:
6114:
6112:
6109:
6107:
6104:
6102:
6099:
6097:
6094:
6092:
6089:
6087:
6084:
6082:
6079:
6077:
6074:
6072:
6069:
6068:
6066:
6062:
6058:
6054:
6046:
6041:
6039:
6034:
6032:
6027:
6026:
6023:
6007:
6004:
6002:
5999:
5997:
5994:
5993:
5990:
5987:
5983:
5974:
5968:
5963:
5957:
5952:
5946:
5941:
5935:
5930:
5924:
5919:
5913:
5908:
5902:
5897:
5891:
5886:
5880:
5875:
5869:
5867:
5864:
5862:
5859:
5857:
5854:
5852:
5851:Human history
5849:
5848:
5846:
5842:
5836:
5833:
5831:
5828:
5826:
5823:
5821:
5818:
5816:
5813:
5811:
5808:
5806:
5803:
5801:
5798:
5796:
5795:
5791:
5790:
5788:
5786:International
5784:
5774:
5771:
5769:
5766:
5764:
5761:
5759:
5756:
5754:
5751:
5749:
5746:
5744:
5741:
5739:
5736:
5735:
5732:
5729:
5725:
5715:
5712:
5710:
5707:
5705:
5702:
5700:
5697:
5696:
5693:
5690:
5686:
5676:
5673:
5671:
5668:
5666:
5663:
5661:
5658:
5656:
5653:
5651:
5648:
5646:
5643:
5641:
5638:
5636:
5634:
5630:
5629:
5626:
5623:
5619:
5609:
5606:
5604:
5602:
5598:
5596:
5593:
5591:
5588:
5586:
5583:
5581:
5578:
5576:
5573:
5571:
5568:
5566:
5563:
5561:
5558:
5557:
5554:
5551:
5545:
5535:
5532:
5530:
5527:
5525:
5522:
5520:
5517:
5515:
5512:
5510:
5507:
5505:
5502:
5500:
5497:
5495:
5492:
5490:
5487:
5485:
5482:
5480:
5477:
5475:
5472:
5470:
5467:
5465:
5462:
5460:
5459:Head of state
5457:
5455:
5452:
5450:
5447:
5445:
5442:
5440:
5437:
5435:
5432:
5431:
5428:
5425:
5421:
5415:
5412:
5410:
5407:
5405:
5402:
5400:
5397:
5395:
5392:
5390:
5387:
5385:
5382:
5380:
5377:
5375:
5372:
5370:
5367:
5365:
5362:
5360:
5357:
5355:
5352:
5350:
5347:
5345:
5342:
5341:
5339:
5335:
5329:
5326:
5324:
5321:
5319:
5318:Progressivism
5316:
5314:
5311:
5309:
5306:
5304:
5301:
5299:
5296:
5294:
5291:
5289:
5286:
5284:
5281:
5279:
5276:
5274:
5271:
5269:
5266:
5264:
5261:
5259:
5256:
5254:
5251:
5249:
5246:
5244:
5241:
5239:
5236:
5234:
5231:
5229:
5226:
5224:
5221:
5219:
5216:
5214:
5211:
5210:
5208:
5204:
5196:
5193:
5191:
5188:
5186:
5183:
5181:
5178:
5176:
5173:
5171:
5168:
5166:
5165:Collaborative
5163:
5161:
5158:
5157:
5156:
5153:
5151:
5148:
5146:
5144:
5140:
5139:
5136:
5133:
5131:
5128:
5126:
5123:
5121:
5118:
5116:
5113:
5111:
5110:Republicanism
5108:
5106:
5103:
5101:
5098:
5096:
5093:
5091:
5088:
5086:
5083:
5081:
5078:
5076:
5073:
5071:
5068:
5066:
5063:
5061:
5058:
5056:
5053:
5051:
5048:
5046:
5043:
5041:
5040:Confederation
5038:
5036:
5033:
5031:
5028:
5026:
5023:
5021:
5018:
5016:
5013:
5011:
5008:
5006:
5003:
5001:
4998:
4997:
4995:
4991:
4985:
4982:
4980:
4977:
4975:
4972:
4970:
4967:
4965:
4962:
4960:
4957:
4955:
4952:
4950:
4947:
4945:
4944:Unitary state
4942:
4940:
4937:
4935:
4932:
4930:
4927:
4925:
4922:
4921:
4919:
4915:
4911:
4907:
4900:
4895:
4893:
4888:
4886:
4881:
4880:
4877:
4871:
4864:
4857:
4852:
4847:
4845:
4835:
4833:
4823:
4821:
4816:
4811:
4809:
4799:
4797:
4787:
4785:
4780:
4775:
4774:
4771:
4764:at Wiktionary
4763:
4762:
4756:
4752:
4749:
4744:
4740:
4739:
4733:
4730:
4729:
4724:
4719:
4695:
4691:
4685:
4677:
4673:
4666:
4659:
4648:
4644:
4640:
4633:
4626:
4618:
4616:0-8203-1875-2
4612:
4608:
4601:
4586:
4584:9780198723868
4580:
4576:
4575:
4567:
4552:
4550:9781847314109
4546:
4542:
4541:
4533:
4525:
4521:
4517:
4513:
4509:
4505:
4501:
4500:Nelson, Caleb
4495:
4487:
4474:
4466:
4462:
4456:
4449:
4445:
4441:
4436:
4429:
4424:
4408:
4404:
4398:
4391:
4390:
4383:
4376:
4375:
4370:
4369:
4364:
4363:
4356:
4340:
4334:
4318:
4314:
4310:
4304:
4288:
4282:
4275:
4274:0-340-89991-3
4271:
4267:
4261:
4253:
4251:9788175348936
4247:
4243:
4242:
4234:
4219:
4215:
4209:
4194:
4188:
4179:
4173:
4169:
4165:
4158:
4156:
4148:
4142:
4126:
4120:
4113:
4109:
4106:
4100:
4093:
4088:
4081:
4077:
4076:
4069:
4053:
4049:
4045:
4041:
4035:
4019:
4015:
4011:
4007:
4001:
3985:
3979:
3977:
3960:
3956:
3952:
3948:
3942:
3940:
3938:
3936:
3934:
3914:
3907:
3906:
3898:
3892:
3888:
3884:
3880:
3875:
3868:
3863:
3856:
3844:
3837:
3833:
3827:
3819:
3815:
3811:
3807:
3803:
3800:(in German).
3799:
3792:
3785:
3780:
3773:
3769:
3764:
3755:
3749:
3745:
3741:
3734:
3727:
3721:
3706:
3702:
3696:
3681:
3677:
3671:
3656:
3652:
3645:
3635:
3627:
3622:
3615:
3609:
3607:
3605:
3603:
3601:
3599:
3590:
3584:
3577:
3571:
3569:
3561:
3555:
3540:
3536:
3530:
3522:
3518:
3511:
3503:
3502:
3497:
3489:
3485:
3481:
3477:
3473:
3471:
3462:
3454:
3450:
3448:
3439:
3431:
3427:
3423:
3419:
3415:
3411:
3404:
3397:
3386:
3382:
3378:
3371:
3364:
3349:
3345:
3339:
3324:
3320:
3319:Jura Falconis
3313:
3306:
3304:
3294:
3281:
3266:
3262:
3256:
3240:
3236:
3230:
3221:
3219:0-8299-2002-1
3215:
3211:
3204:
3189:
3185:
3178:
3170:
3166:
3159:
3140:
3136:
3129:
3122:
3116:
3111:
3095:
3091:
3087:
3080:
3073:
3069:
3064:
3048:
3044:
3038:
3023:
3022:www.uscis.gov
3019:
3013:
3006:
3002:
2997:
2990:
2986:
2980:
2972:
2966:
2951:on 1 May 2013
2947:
2940:
2934:
2921:
2918:
2917:stare decisis
2913:
2912:stare decisis
2909:
2908:
2903:
2902:
2893:
2887:
2885:
2883:
2881:
2873:
2872:
2865:
2863:
2847:
2843:
2837:
2835:
2833:
2824:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2795:Legal Studies
2789:
2782:
2775:
2770:
2755:
2751:
2745:
2741:
2730:
2727:
2725:
2722:
2720:
2717:
2715:
2712:
2710:
2707:
2705:
2702:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2692:
2690:
2687:
2685:
2684:Legal opinion
2682:
2679:
2676:
2674:
2671:
2669:
2666:
2664:
2661:
2659:
2656:
2654:
2651:
2649:
2648:Case citation
2646:
2645:
2638:
2636:
2632:
2631:stare decisis
2627:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2616:stare decisis
2607:
2605:
2600:
2597:
2596:stare decisis
2588:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2580:
2573:
2568:
2566:
2556:
2547:
2542:
2540:
2539:stare decisis
2535:
2533:
2522:
2517:
2515:
2511:
2506:
2504:
2503:plain meaning
2500:
2499:stare decisis
2496:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2483:Stare decisis
2480:
2475:
2474:stare decisis
2470:
2468:
2464:
2463:stare decisis
2459:
2450:
2448:
2447:
2442:
2441:stare decisis
2437:
2435:
2434:statutory law
2431:
2426:
2422:
2421:stare decisis
2412:
2410:
2400:
2391:
2389:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2340:
2338:
2334:
2333:
2332:Heydon's Case
2328:
2327:mischief rule
2323:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2308:
2303:
2301:
2297:
2296:
2295:Fisher v Bell
2291:
2287:
2283:
2278:
2275:
2267:
2262:
2252:
2243:
2241:
2237:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2223:
2218:
2217:
2210:
2208:
2204:
2203:
2198:
2197:
2192:
2187:
2185:
2181:
2180:stare decisis
2176:
2175:
2170:
2166:
2156:
2154:
2153:stare decisis
2144:
2142:
2141:stare decisis
2138:
2137:
2132:
2131:stare decisis
2128:
2127:
2121:
2119:
2118:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2100:
2092:
2091:
2084:
2079:
2077:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:Stare decisis
2051:
2050:stare decisis
2047:
2044:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2025:
2021:
2020:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1973:
1972:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1957:
1954:
1951:
1947:
1946:Sotomayor, J.
1943:
1942:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1926:
1922:
1919:
1915:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1902:
1901:Stare decisis
1898:
1897:stare decisis
1893:
1892:Stare decisis
1889:
1887:
1886:
1880:
1879:stare decisis
1875:
1874:Stare decisis
1871:
1867:
1866:stare decisis
1862:
1851:
1849:
1848:stare decisis
1845:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1829:
1828:stare decisis
1821:
1820:stare decisis
1817:
1814:
1811:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1791:
1790:stare decisis
1787:
1772:
1770:
1765:
1755:
1753:
1747:
1743:
1741:
1740:stare decisis
1737:
1736:stare decisis
1733:
1727:
1725:
1719:
1714:
1712:
1707:
1705:
1699:
1696:
1695:stare decisis
1691:
1690:Stare decisis
1687:
1686:stare decisis
1683:
1682:Stare decisis
1678:
1675:
1670:
1655:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1613:
1603:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1592:stare decisis
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1527:Supreme Court
1524:
1520:
1515:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1500:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1451:stare decisis
1448:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1433:Stare decisis
1425:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1412:, which have
1411:
1410:
1405:
1404:
1398:
1394:
1383:
1380:
1372:
1369:November 2023
1362:
1358:
1352:
1351:
1344:
1335:
1334:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1281:
1272:
1263:
1255:
1253:
1246:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1223:
1213:
1211:
1207:
1206:
1198:
1190:
1185:
1178:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1153:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1107:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1079:
1075:
1066:
1052:
1049:
1048:Supreme Court
1040:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1003:
997:
995:
985:
983:
979:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
950:
948:
947:jurisdictions
944:
939:
937:
933:
929:
924:
920:
916:
907:
905:
902:referring to
901:
900:
895:
894:Arlen Specter
891:
887:
883:
882:stare decisis
878:
876:
875:stare decisis
872:
871:
866:
865:
859:
854:
852:
851:stare decisis
844:
843:stare decisis
838:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
804:
801:
800:
799:
796:
793:
789:
779:
777:
771:
769:
765:
764:
757:
753:
749:
747:
741:
736:
733:
731:
727:
726:Stare decisis
723:
722:stare decisis
719:
714:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:legal systems
685:
681:
677:
672:
669:
665:
664:stare decisis
661:
657:
653:
650:(alternately
649:
643:
628:
626:
617:
614:
610:
609:Erie doctrine
606:
605:
604:
595:
593:
589:
588:
583:
579:
574:
572:
571:stare decisis
561:
559:
555:
551:
550:stare decisis
547:
546:stare decisis
541:
539:
534:
532:
531:supreme court
528:
524:
520:
505:
501:
498:
497:
491:
489:
483:
481:
477:
473:
467:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
447:
446:
441:
440:encyclopedias
436:
434:
433:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
406:
404:
398:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:stare decisis
380:
376:
372:
362:
360:
352:
349:
348:
347:
345:
341:
335:
261:
260:Stare decisis
252:
250:
247:practiced by
246:
242:
238:
235:In contrast,
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
217:
216:distinguished
213:
210:
206:
203:
202:
201:
198:
196:
192:
188:
184:
182:
178:
174:
170:
169:statutory law
166:
162:
158:
154:
152:
151:
150:stare decisis
146:
142:
138:
134:
124:
121:
113:
102:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71: â
70:
66:
65:Find sources:
59:
55:
49:
48:
43:This article
41:
37:
32:
31:
26:
22:
8365:
8352:
8345:
8331:
8317:
8090:Jurisdiction
8058:Legal remedy
8013:Adjudication
7913:Legal theory
7751:Ratification
7746:Promulgation
7717:Proclamation
7697:Codification
7656:
7630:Human rights
7618:Divine right
7608:Constitution
7576:Women in law
7494:Military law
7489:Marriage law
7484:Maritime law
7383:Election law
7323:Aviation law
7313:Abortion law
7265:Property law
7201:Criminal law
7116:
7104:
7057:Public float
6992:Job creation
6944:Public space
6871:Public works
6748:Public value
6743:Public trust
5976:}}
5970:{{
5965:}}
5959:{{
5954:}}
5948:{{
5943:}}
5937:{{
5932:}}
5926:{{
5921:}}
5915:{{
5910:}}
5904:{{
5899:}}
5893:{{
5888:}}
5882:{{
5877:}}
5871:{{
5865:
5861:Civilization
5814:
5792:
5762:
5752:
5737:
5698:
5670:Civil rights
5664:
5649:
5631:
5607:
5599:
5579:
5575:Town meeting
5559:
5508:
5483:
5453:
5439:Constitution
5433:
5398:
5378:
5322:
5268:Distributism
5253:Conservatism
5238:Collectivism
5206:Philosophies
5180:Cosmopolitan
5175:Conservative
5141:
5014:
5005:Govt systems
4999:
4979:Municipality
4958:
4760:
4750:at Wikiquote
4722:
4697:. Retrieved
4693:
4684:
4675:
4671:
4658:
4647:the original
4642:
4638:
4625:
4606:
4600:
4590:30 September
4588:. Retrieved
4573:
4566:
4556:29 September
4554:. Retrieved
4539:
4532:
4507:
4503:
4494:
4473:cite journal
4455:
4443:
4435:
4427:
4423:
4411:. Retrieved
4409:. March 2013
4406:
4397:
4388:
4382:
4373:
4366:
4361:
4355:
4343:. Retrieved
4333:
4321:. Retrieved
4317:the original
4312:
4303:
4291:. Retrieved
4289:. Bailii.org
4281:
4265:
4260:
4240:
4233:
4221:. Retrieved
4217:
4208:
4196:. Retrieved
4187:
4167:
4146:
4141:
4129:. Retrieved
4119:
4099:
4091:
4087:
4079:
4074:
4068:
4056:. Retrieved
4052:the original
4047:
4034:
4022:. Retrieved
4018:the original
4009:
4000:
3988:. Retrieved
3963:. Retrieved
3959:the original
3954:
3920:. Retrieved
3913:the original
3904:
3897:
3882:
3874:
3862:
3854:
3847:, retrieved
3842:
3826:
3801:
3797:
3791:
3783:
3779:
3771:
3767:
3763:
3743:
3733:
3725:
3720:
3708:. Retrieved
3704:
3695:
3683:. Retrieved
3679:
3670:
3658:. Retrieved
3654:
3644:
3634:
3625:
3621:
3613:
3588:
3587:Ian Eppler,
3583:
3575:
3554:
3542:. Retrieved
3538:
3529:
3521:the original
3510:
3499:
3482:(1): 11â32.
3479:
3475:
3469:
3461:
3452:
3446:
3438:
3413:
3409:
3396:
3385:the original
3380:
3376:
3363:
3351:. Retrieved
3347:
3338:
3326:. Retrieved
3322:
3318:
3293:
3280:
3268:. Retrieved
3264:
3255:
3243:. Retrieved
3238:
3229:
3209:
3203:
3191:. Retrieved
3187:
3177:
3168:
3164:
3158:
3146:. Retrieved
3139:the original
3134:
3121:
3110:
3098:. Retrieved
3093:
3089:
3079:
3067:
3063:
3051:. Retrieved
3047:the original
3037:
3025:. Retrieved
3021:
3012:
3000:
2996:
2988:
2979:
2953:. Retrieved
2946:the original
2933:
2925:Walton Myers
2916:
2911:
2906:
2905:
2900:
2899:
2896:
2891:
2869:
2849:. Retrieved
2845:
2798:
2794:
2781:
2773:
2769:
2757:. Retrieved
2753:
2744:
2663:Custom (law)
2630:
2628:
2615:
2613:
2604:undemocratic
2601:
2595:
2593:
2575:
2570:
2562:
2554:
2544:
2538:
2536:
2529:
2519:
2507:
2498:
2482:
2481:argue that "
2473:
2471:
2467:interpreting
2466:
2462:
2456:
2444:
2440:
2438:
2420:
2418:
2406:
2397:
2384:
2379:923 P.2d 783
2374:
2363:
2352:
2346:
2336:
2330:
2324:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2304:
2300:contract law
2293:
2289:
2286:R v Maginnis
2285:
2282:literal rule
2279:
2276:
2273:
2264:
2249:
2239:
2235:
2230:
2222:R v Shivpuri
2220:
2214:
2211:
2202:R v Caldwell
2200:
2194:
2188:
2179:
2172:
2163:The British
2162:
2152:
2150:
2140:
2134:
2130:
2124:
2122:
2115:
2103:
2101:
2097:
2088:
2081:
2075:
2073:
2065:obiter dicta
2056:
2055:
2049:
2045:
2039:
2029:
2017:
2009:
2001:
1989:
1984:tare decisis
1983:
1977:
1969:
1961:
1955:
1939:
1923:
1911:
1905:
1900:
1896:
1891:
1890:
1883:
1878:
1873:
1865:
1858:
1847:
1833:
1827:
1825:
1819:
1789:
1783:
1766:
1762:
1749:
1745:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1729:
1726:has stated:
1721:
1716:
1713:has stated:
1708:
1703:
1701:
1694:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1674:285 U.S. 393
1668:
1666:
1624:
1609:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1556:
1547:kammarrätter
1546:
1542:
1538:
1530:
1516:
1503:
1501:
1492:
1487:
1478:
1470:
1468:
1463:
1450:
1440:
1432:
1431:
1409:obiter dicta
1407:
1401:
1390:
1375:
1366:
1347:
1311:
1307:jurisdiction
1298:
1292:
1278:
1269:
1261:
1248:
1225:
1205:res judicata
1203:
1200:
1197:res judicata
1189:Res judicata
1188:
1182:
1177:Res judicata
1176:
1167:
1155:
1132:
1125:
1110:
1102:
1085:
1076:
1072:
1063:
1044:
1032:
1023:obiter dicta
1022:
1018:
1015:obiter dicta
1014:
1010:obiter dicta
1008:
1006:
1002:obiter dicta
1001:
991:
975:
951:
940:
934:or academic
918:
914:
913:
903:
897:
890:Samuel Alito
888:and Justice
886:John Roberts
881:
879:
874:
868:
862:
855:
850:
848:
842:
808:
797:
785:
772:
761:
758:
754:
750:
743:
738:
734:
725:
721:
715:
701:in 2009. In
680:lower courts
673:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
645:
622:
601:
585:
575:
570:
568:
549:
545:
543:
535:
523:trial courts
516:
502:
494:
492:
484:
468:
464:Highway Code
449:
443:
437:
430:
426:
411:Lord Denning
407:
399:
382:
368:
356:
343:
259:
258:
234:
228:
222:
214:
208:
204:
199:
185:
155:
149:
148:
132:
131:
116:
110:January 2022
107:
97:
90:
83:
76:
64:
52:Please help
47:verification
44:
8262:Legislature
8193:Bureaucracy
7990:Rule of man
7985:Rule of law
7960:Libertarian
7823:Chinese law
7724:Legislation
7674:Regulations
7662:Law reports
7640:Natural law
7536:Reparations
7531:Refugee law
7454:Jurimetrics
7395:(Media law)
7333:Banking law
7328:Amnesty law
7306:Disciplines
7243:Private law
6909:Public bank
6884:Free clinic
6718:Public land
6668:Common good
6218:Economics /
5835:World Court
5768:Magna Carta
5585:Legislation
5547:Governance
5504:Legislature
5379:Regulation:
5288:Familialism
5263:Corporatism
5243:Communalism
5213:Agrarianism
5125:Technocracy
5085:Meritocracy
5080:Kleptocracy
5060:Ergatocracy
5055:Electocracy
5045:Colonialism
5030:Bureaucracy
5025:Aristocracy
4510:(1): 1â84.
4386:See, e.g.,
4359:See, e.g.,
4345:11 December
3455:: 195â216 .
3288:647 (2008).
3027:24 February
2759:6 September
2750:"Precedent"
2668:Distinguish
2635:minimalists
2620:legislature
2579:legal costs
2458:Originalism
2453:Originalism
2368:153 Va. 332
2307:golden rule
2240:R v Lambert
2227:Lord Bridge
1932:underlying
1930:rule of law
1918:Roberts, J.
1780:Development
1775:Application
1600:prima facie
1116:(replacing
936:law reviews
870:Roe v. Wade
813:situation,
746:distinguish
691:English law
668:lower court
191:law reports
69:"Precedent"
8373:Categories
8255:Law school
8135:Prosecutor
8073:Magistrate
7860:Jewish law
7818:Common law
7739:Rulemaking
7734:Regulation
7684:Law making
7623:Divine law
7599:Legal code
7546:Sports law
7469:Law of war
7419:Health law
7404:Family law
7388:Energy law
7338:Bankruptcy
7275:Punishment
7270:Public law
7082:Public use
6964:Urban park
6904:Public art
6693:Public bad
6470:Presidents
6166:Defence /
6064:Leadership
6057:ministries
5985:Categories
5918:liberalism
5866:Templates:
5763:Documents:
5738:Overviews:
5590:Regulation
5519:Parliament
5423:Components
5409:Sanitation
5399:Municipal:
5328:John Locke
5313:Liberalism
5293:Fanaticism
5105:Plutocracy
5075:Geniocracy
5065:Federalism
5035:Capitalism
4910:government
4867:Government
4678:: 695â740.
4639:Modern Age
4341:. Labspace
4313:Lawade.com
4131:2 November
4058:3 November
4024:3 November
3990:3 November
3965:3 November
3849:27 January
3710:20 October
3626:See, e.g.,
3592:system.â).
3560:Loud Rules
3544:10 October
3492:quoted by
3100:2 November
3053:2 November
2851:11 January
2491:common law
2430:common law
2280:Under the
2236:R v Kansal
2234:cases; in
2184:common law
1996:Scalia, J.
1950:concurring
1844:common law
1840:common law
1836:common law
1798:common law
1786:common law
1752:common law
1648:common law
1640:Blackstone
1631:common law
1616:common law
1612:professors
1587:common law
1533:) and the
1512:common law
1497:common law
1475:common law
1397:common law
1169:Litigation
1159:a reporter
1089:common law
819:erga omnes
815:jus cogens
792:common law
790:and other
763:certiorari
684:common law
640:See also:
519:common law
435:K.B. 130.
427:High Trees
387:High Court
379:common-law
371:common-law
157:Common law
137:legal case
80:newspapers
21:Precedence
8233:Judiciary
8228:Executive
8203:The bench
8140:Solicitor
8115:Barrister
7995:Sociology
7980:Pseudolaw
7920:Anarchist
7877:Roman law
7865:Parsi law
7850:Hindu law
7838:Canon law
7813:Civil law
7766:Concordat
7657:Precedent
7566:Trust law
7541:Space law
7378:Drugs law
7248:Procedure
7186:Civil law
6071:President
6053:ministers
5794:Diplomacy
5714:Sociology
5645:Campaigns
5633:Elections
5608:Precedent
5580:Outcomes:
5570:Committee
5549:processes
5499:Judiciary
5474:President
5434:Documents
5374:Espionage
5337:Functions
5283:Extremism
5218:Anarchism
5170:Consensus
5160:Cellular
5143:Democracy
5130:Theocracy
5115:Socialism
5100:Oligarchy
5070:Feudalism
5050:Communism
4917:Overviews
4761:precedent
4748:Precedent
4723:Precedent
4694:OpenLearn
3818:0033-7250
3726:Contracts
3430:154308093
2815:1748-121X
2487:civil law
1652:civil law
1583:Louisiana
1563:Scots law
1543:hovrätter
1437:civil law
1393:civil law
1357:talk page
1284:Conflicts
1124:decision
962:Scots law
958:pluralist
954:civil law
932:treatises
856:In 1976,
707:pluralist
703:civil law
656:mandatory
255:Principle
237:civil law
229:overruled
161:civil law
143:or other
133:Precedent
25:President
8379:Case law
8340:Category
8282:Tribunal
8267:Military
8110:Attorney
8080:Judgment
7940:Feminist
7855:Jain law
7652:Case law
7373:Cyberlaw
7280:Corporal
7258:Criminal
7228:Evidence
7218:Doctrine
7196:Contract
7106:Category
7040:See also
6661:Concepts
6121:Minister
5758:Suffrage
5688:Academic
5621:Politics
5560:Process:
5529:Assembly
5514:Congress
5494:Ministry
5369:Military
5303:Feminism
5228:Centrism
5195:Republic
5095:Monarchy
5015:Systems:
4984:Township
4906:Politics
4856:Monarchy
4820:Internet
4463:(2004).
4442:(1991).
4323:29 March
4293:16 March
4108:Archived
4073:Central
3885:(2007),
3660:8 August
3488:11656531
3328:21 April
2965:cite web
2923:â
2894:(2004):
2823:29507544
2641:See also
2524:â
2316:vicinity
2207:mens rea
2086:â
1870:doctrine
1621:doctrine
1567:Scotland
1464:de facto
1458:and the
1447:holdings
1418:statutes
1350:disputed
1318:holdings
1135:doctrine
1098:contract
966:case law
835:case law
711:case law
472:district
442:such as
423:estoppel
389:and the
223:modified
187:Case law
145:tribunal
8354:Outline
8291:History
8198:The bar
8172:Verdict
8120:Counsel
8100:Justice
7955:History
7778:Statute
7594:Charter
7556:Tax law
7504:Probate
7118:Commons
7047:Commons
6101:Premier
5844:Related
5800:Embassy
5753:Reforms
5727:History
5665:Issues:
5650:Groups:
5565:Hearing
5524:Council
5489:Cabinet
5484:Bodies:
5469:Monarch
5444:Charter
5298:Fascism
5120:Statism
5020:Anarchy
4993:Systems
4959:Levels:
4832:Lebanon
4770:Portals
4524:1073894
4198:29 June
4114:(1992).
3685:24 June
3148:2 March
3007:(1962).
2624:statute
2061:holding
2024:slip op
849:"Super
841:"Super
730:analogy
587:en banc
458:or the
369:In the
209:adopted
205:applied
94:scholar
8272:Police
8243:Agency
8125:Lawyer
7870:Sharia
7761:Treaty
7756:Repeal
7702:Decree
7613:Custom
7509:Estate
7459:Labour
7223:Equity
6577:
6311:Social
6209:Europe
6130:Titles
5815:World:
5805:Treaty
5640:Voting
5595:Zoning
5454:Roles:
5000:Lists:
4934:Empire
4929:Nation
4720:about
4699:7 June
4613:
4581:
4547:
4522:
4413:7 June
4272:
4248:
4223:7 June
4174:
3922:4 June
3816:
3750:
3486:
3428:
3353:7 June
3270:12 May
3245:12 May
3216:
3193:12 May
2821:
2813:
2729:Taqlid
2290:supply
2104:Burnet
2076:Burnet
1704:Burnet
1579:Quebec
1523:Sweden
1508:German
1484:France
941:In a "
917:(also
817:norms
682:under
613:submit
529:and a
429:case:
403:appeal
342:maxim
96:
89:
82:
75:
67:
8347:Index
8213:Court
8157:Trial
8063:Judge
7904:Yassa
7707:Edict
7253:Civil
7206:Crime
6463:Lists
6447:Other
4924:State
4808:Kenya
4796:India
4668:(PDF)
4650:(PDF)
4635:(PDF)
4520:JSTOR
3916:(PDF)
3909:(PDF)
3839:(PDF)
3426:S2CID
3406:(PDF)
3388:(PDF)
3373:(PDF)
3315:(PDF)
3171:: 18.
3142:(PDF)
3131:(PDF)
3096:: 743
2955:1 May
2949:(PDF)
2942:(PDF)
2819:S2CID
2791:(PDF)
2736:Notes
2719:Qiyas
2425:state
2196:R v G
2040:Casey
1559:mixed
1557:Some
1297:, as
1295:Latin
1100:law.
928:dicta
809:In a
689:. In
375:cases
340:Latin
141:court
101:JSTOR
87:books
8095:Jury
8043:Fiqh
7899:Xeer
7297:Tort
7213:Deed
6055:and
4908:and
4701:2019
4676:2011
4611:ISBN
4592:2020
4579:ISBN
4558:2020
4545:ISBN
4486:help
4415:2019
4347:2012
4325:2018
4295:2022
4270:ISBN
4246:ISBN
4225:2019
4200:2020
4172:ISBN
4145:See
4133:2012
4060:2020
4026:2020
3992:2020
3967:2020
3924:2012
3851:2023
3814:ISSN
3748:ISBN
3712:2022
3687:2022
3662:2022
3546:2022
3484:PMID
3355:2019
3330:2024
3272:2022
3247:2022
3214:ISBN
3195:2022
3150:2016
3102:2012
3055:2012
3029:2019
2971:link
2957:2013
2853:2024
2811:ISSN
2761:2018
2325:The
2305:The
1722:The
1709:The
1638:and
1636:Coke
1610:Law
1594:and
1581:and
1395:and
1133:Erie
956:and
705:and
666:, a
536:The
448:and
73:news
7167:Law
5601:Law
4784:Law
4512:doi
4448:PBS
3887:doi
3806:doi
3418:doi
3323:318
2803:doi
2572:me.
2432:or
2114:in
2038:in
1614:in
1565:in
1254:".
1231:or
1208:or
952:In
904:Roe
837:).
720:of
676:law
674:In
658:or
278:ÉÉr
56:by
23:or
8375::
7601:/
4692:.
4674:.
4670:.
4643:14
4641:.
4637:.
4518:.
4508:87
4506:.
4477::
4475:}}
4471:{{
4405:.
4311:.
4216:.
4154:^
4046:.
4012:.
4008:.
3975:^
3953:.
3932:^
3853:,
3841:,
3812:.
3802:84
3703:.
3678:.
3653:.
3597:^
3567:^
3537:.
3498:.
3480:68
3478:.
3474:.
3451:.
3424:.
3414:19
3412:.
3408:.
3381:14
3379:.
3375:.
3346:.
3321:.
3317:.
3302:^
3263:.
3237:.
3186:.
3169:63
3167:.
3133:.
3094:51
3092:.
3088:.
3070:,
3020:.
3003:,
2987:,
2967:}}
2963:{{
2879:^
2861:^
2844:.
2831:^
2817:.
2809:.
2799:35
2797:.
2793:.
2752:.
2377:,
2366:,
2355:,
2320:in
1948:,
1830::
1671:,
1573:,
1569:,
1309:.
1235:.
930:,
732:.
724:.
654:,
627:.
573:.
466:.
331:eÉŞ
325:ÉË
301:aÉŞ
7159:e
7152:t
7145:v
6623:e
6616:t
6609:v
6551:)
6547:(
6044:e
6037:t
6030:v
5635::
5603::
5145::
4898:e
4891:t
4884:v
4772::
4703:.
4619:.
4594:.
4560:.
4526:.
4514::
4488:)
4484:(
4430:.
4417:.
4349:.
4327:.
4297:.
4276:.
4254:.
4227:.
4202:.
4180:.
4135:.
4062:.
4028:.
3994:.
3969:.
3926:.
3889::
3869:.
3820:.
3808::
3756:.
3714:.
3689:.
3664:.
3548:.
3504:.
3490:,
3472:"
3432:.
3420::
3357:.
3332:.
3274:.
3249:.
3222:.
3197:.
3152:.
3104:.
3057:.
3031:.
2973:)
2959:.
2855:.
2825:.
2805::
2763:.
1537:(
1529:(
1382:)
1376:(
1371:)
1367:(
1363:.
1353:.
845:"
334:/
328:r
322:t
319:s
316:Ë
313:,
310:s
307:ÉŞ
304:s
298:s
295:Ë
292:ÉŞ
289:d
284:i
281:r
275:t
272:s
269:Ë
266:/
262:(
123:)
117:(
112:)
108:(
98:¡
91:¡
84:¡
77:¡
50:.
27:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
