26

The Supreme Court is infallible only in that their rulings are unchallengable, at least through any judicial process. Dissents often explain how the dissenter thinks a decision is not only wrong, but horribly misguided. Law review articles and other publications often criticize Court decisions, and sometimes influence later results. It is far from unheard of ...


10

The Supreme Court is not infallible: rather it is unappealable*. The Supreme Court does not claim to be, and can be rather explicit and unapologetic when denoucing past decisions. See the Trump v. Hawaii decisions (both opinion and dissent), with regards to Korematsu. *In the court system; a law can be overwritten by Congress in explicit reaction to a ruling,...


9

India does not have a constitutional court, which is a term usually reserved for a court which has exclusively jurisdiction over constitutional questions and usually limited to constitutional questions. India has a (mostly) unitary court system capped by the Supreme Court of India, but its jurisdiction is not limited to constitutional questions, and it is ...


7

The core principle of stare decisis is that the law should not depend on what judge you got; two cases with the same facts should have the same outcome. In the common-law tradition, there weren't really written statutes; there was only "what's been done in the past," and so the only reference you'd have to what the law should be in some situation is past ...


7

In the legal practice of the united-states and the united-kingdom comments in a court opinion which are not essential to the result reached by the court are not, strictly speaking, binding precedent. Such comments are known as Obiter dicta, or just dicta (singular dictum), literally "said by the way". They are often considered to be persuasive, ...


6

It is the lower courts' interpretation of a senior court's judgment—specifically the ratio—that determines what is the precedent. If a court doesn't want its opinion to bind lower courts, it can be clear in its judgment that this is not what was intended. For example, a court could say that this judgment turns on the particular facts of this ...


6

Is there any legal precedent for suing a city to amend or terminate an agreement due to fiscal nonfeasance? There is not really any legal precedent for prevailing in such a lawsuit. Obviously, of course, the detailed facts and circumstances matter. If a state statute prescribed other terms, for example, and expressly gives someone standing to enforce the ...


6

The Scopes "Monkey Trial" and the Supreme Court cases about evolution In Tennessee v Scopes a school teacher deliberately incriminated themselves of breaching a law against teaching the theory of evolution, in order to be prosecuted and allow a supporting group to push the case further. In Epperson v Arkansas the same thing happened, except that the ...


6

Why does someone need to know? Supreme Court decisions are effective to all cases at trial or on direct appeal when decided, so long as the issue it resolves are raised in the trial court. Judges generally don't suspend cases because a case that could change the law is pending. If the decision comes out shortly after the trial, the judge can overturn the ...


5

This would establish a new precedent (I assume) You assume correctly. However, a precedent is only binding on lower courts and persuasive on courts at the same level so a trial judge precedent is not very far-reaching. Does this statute takes precedence over (overrules) the previous court precedent? Not exactly. The precedent was good for the old (common) ...


5

Firstly, true artificial intelligence does not yet exist. The term "artificial intelligence" is a bit of a buzzword, used to refer to things like neural networks and decision trees, which are really just elaborate statistical calculations. They do not have a "mind of their own" by any stretch of the imagination, though it is possible to make them appear as ...


5

There isn't to the best of my knowledge, any single document that tells courts to follow precedant or when and how to do so. Each State, and the Federal government, has a set of court rules of procedure. These will indicate, among many other things, the form that should be used in citing previous cases, but that is about form, not content -- about how to ...


5

The alternative is the same whether just one lower court or many lower courts ignore SCOTUS precedent. An aggrieved parts will appeal the lower court ruling, and the matter will work its way up the ladder until SCOTUS directly rules on this application of the law. This sort of happens all the time, when lower courts don't apply the ostensive "final ruling" ...


5

The standard is this, from Teague v. Lane: If a case announces a “new rule,” an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, the new rule will apply to all cases pending on direct review; but in most cases it will not apply to cases already final. There are two exceptions: First, a “new rule” will apply retroactively if it is “substantive,” ...


5

First, the relevant term is "precedent". You have misstated the nature of "precedent". Precedent is simply the addition of further information about what the law is. A legislature may set forth a law that say "If A, then (if you B, you will suffer consequence C)". But it is not self-evident in a given instance whether A is true, or B is true, or what exactly ...


5

Anti-abortion laws in the US The heavy-handed laws introduced in some states are a deliberate challenge to Roe v Wade and are designed so that the state will lose a case and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court specifically for the purpose of testing the law.


5

This answer is under United States law. Usually, when a court interprets the law in a way that was previously ambiguous, parties are not given any leniency for not knowing in advance how an issue will be resolved. Sometimes, when a court overrules prior precedent with a new precedent the court will grant some leniency, if there is an easy way to do so. For ...


4

Stare decisis is more than just the authority for later decisions to refer to previous ones; it is, to a certain degree, an obligation to. Which is to say, that as a rule, judges (and more often than not their clerks) will spend a lot of their time looking through old cases in order to find out what case law has decided, what the precedent is. At this point, ...


4

The decision of a court consists of several things: The orders made A summary of the evidence The judge's reasoning from the evidence to their conclusions of what the facts of the case are The judge's reasoning from the evidence to their conclusions of what the law applying to those facts is The judge's reasoning from those findings of facts and law to the ...


4

Law (regardless of its type) supersedes contract, provided it has jurisdiction over the persons bound by that contract. Contract provisions that are counter to law are generally held to be void. State law has authority over an employer's policies or hand book. However, there may be exceptions in state law (so I would double check). A frequent exception (...


4

While an appellate court may have the opportunity to reverse any individual trial judge every few years, I know that trial judges, in their numerous workday rulings, reverse appellate courts every day. Gregory Kellam Scott, “Judge-Made Law: Constitutional Duties and Obligations Under the Separations of Powers Doctrine,” 49 DEPAUL L. REV.517 (1999) (a ...


4

Note the following argument: the landmark 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, which ruled that state officials cannot obstruct “the measures of a government [the federal government] created by others as well as themselves.” “In other words,” Kalt and Amar summarize, “a single state cannot use its power to derail the functioning of the United States.” (...


4

All precedents are made in court judgements Courts exist in a hierarchy which means there are two kinds of precedent: binding and persuasive. A binding precedent is one set in the same hierarchy by a higher level court. A persuasive precedent is one set at the same or lower level in the hierarchy or in a completely different hierarchy. For example, a ...


4

Can “positive news coverage” be considered a “thing of value” in a bribery case? Yes. Note that a narrow, specific holding that "positive news coverage" is a thing of value is unnecessary because it is implied by the general notion of thing of value as reflected in US case law. Several [U.S.] court opinions, such as U.S. v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1164-...


4

Yes, both duress and necessity remain viable defenses. The contours of these defenses will vary from state to state, but many states use the Model Penal Code. MPC § 3.02(1) lays out the necessity defense, which it calls justification: Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided ...


4

No The importance of following precedent, and the principle of stare decisis were inherited by the early US legal system from the British Common Law system, and have been taken as part of the natural order of the legal system by US courts ever since. This extends even to a court overruling itself. US Courts are notoriously reluctant to overrule their past ...


4

Does this create precedent? NO This was a Crown Court case, only the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal can set precedent which it did with similar circumstances in R v Hill 1989


3

How can you tell if an AI agent is biased in its decisions? How would the concept of discrimination apply to an AI agent? How would you prosecute it? A subject matter expert would scrutinize or audit the implementation of the algorithm and testify accordingly (see hszmv's allusion to the independent reviewer). From there, counsel representing the ...


3

Yes, such as this limitation on free speech. Initially, the limitation was "Clear and Present Danger" test (Schenk v. United States, 1919) which held that speech inciting lawless action was not protected speech and thus could be crimilized speech (i.e. Schenk publishing anti-draft fliers during World War I, which advocated draft dodging which at the time ...


3

If a law is struck-down as unconstitutional, but all the precedent used to find it unconstitutional gets reversed; what becomes of the law? In U.S. law, the law has effect again, unless it has been amended or repealed in the meantime. Is it totally dead, needing be passed anew? In the U.S., no. It is not totally dead. It is merely dormant. It stays ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible