State Sovereign Immunity and Stare Decisis: Solving the Prisoners' Dilemma within the Court
نویسنده
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Narrowing Supreme Court Precedent from Below
Lower courts supposedly follow Supreme Court precedent—but they often don’t. Instead of adhering to the most persuasive interpretations of the Court’s opinions, lower courts often adopt narrower readings. For example, recent courts of appeals’ decisions have narrowly interpreted the Court’s rulings on police searches, gun control, and campaign finance. This practice—which I call “narrowing from...
متن کاملThe Role of Open Texture and Stare Decisis in Data Mining Discretion
The use of knowledge discovery from database (KDD) techniques such as neural networks in the legal domain can alter the practice of law by introducing a non-expert mechanism for predicting and analyzing Court outcomes. Legal domains that are well suited to KDD are those in which a high level of judicial discretion exists particularly where the source of the discretion stems from a principle sta...
متن کاملStare Decisis and Certiorari Arrive to Brazil: a Comparative Law and Economics Approach
Two important legal reforms in court procedure have taken place in Brazil recently: súmula vinculante (all courts now have to follow the reasoning of the Supreme Court in similar cases) and requisito da repercussão geral (the Supreme Court only hears cases that are of general importance). These two procedural rules respond to a long debate in the Brazilian legal community on how to address cour...
متن کاملWhy Stare Decisis?∗
All Courts rule ex-post, after most economic decisions are sunk. This can generate a time-inconsistency problem. From an ex-ante perspective, Courts will have the ex-post temptation to be excessively lenient. This observation is at the root of the rule of precedent, known as stare decisis. Stare decisis forces Courts to weigh the benefits of leniency towards the current parties against the bene...
متن کاملDissent: the Rewards and Risks of Judicial Disagreement in the High Court of Australia
[This article examines the justifications which support the capacity of individual justices to voice their disagreement from a majority through the writing of dissenting opinions. In doing so, it employs extensive comparison with the practice of dissent in other jurisdictions, particularly that of the United States Supreme Court. The author contends that there are political, procedural and deve...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2017