34
votes
Would a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice be expected to recuse themselves from a Trump case?
No, That Would not be treated as a Conflict of Interest
There is precedent. The four Justices appointed by President Nixon did not recuse themselves on cases involving Nixon, including subpoenas to ...
- 113k
26
votes
When an old Supreme Court ruling is overturned by a new one, how is this explained philosophically?
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 ...
- 113k
23
votes
Accepted
What happens when the opinion of the Court misrepresents the facts of the case?
What are the legal consequences of substantive factual errors in an
opinion?
None.
I assume that this specific ruling is not affected in any way by the
text of the opinion?
Correct.
I assume that ...
- 195k
20
votes
Would a Trump-nominated Supreme Court justice be expected to recuse themselves from a Trump case?
There is no hard law (statutory, constitutional or SCOTUS holding) regarding "conflict of interest" for Supreme Court justices. Justices have typically recused themselves in case of ...
- 210k
20
votes
Can a previously binding precedent be overturned based on its rationale being outdated?
An "outdated rationale" is one factor to be considered when overruling precedent.
Yes. Precedent relies on respect for the principle of stare decisis, the idea that courts should stand by ...
- 57.2k
14
votes
In the United States, must state courts follow rulings by federal courts of appeals?
Widely accepted answer: no, state courts are not bound by circuit precedent
The near-consensus is that state courts need not follow the rulings by federal courts of appeal.1 State courts are ...
- 43.2k
13
votes
Accepted
How was the court in Abingdon RDC v O'Gorman (1968 EWCA Civ) aware of Thornton v Cruther & ors (1769)?
The Law Reports at Abingdon Rural District Council v. O'Gorman [1968] 2 QB 811, 820 read as follows:
[T]he judges held that in order to "impound or otherwise secure" the distress on the ...
- 8,632
10
votes
When an old Supreme Court ruling is overturned by a new one, how is this explained philosophically?
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. ...
- 8,737
9
votes
Do the observations of constitutional courts that are not necessary for deciding the case form binding precedents for lower courts?
India does not have a constitutional court, which is a term usually reserved for a court which has exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional questions and is usually limited to deciding ...
- 195k
9
votes
What happens when the opinion of the Court misrepresents the facts of the case?
Appellate courts are not finders of fact. Appeals courts are supposed to resolve questions of law. The job of a court of appeals isn’t supposed to be to second-guess whether the witnesses are ...
- 2,826
8
votes
Accepted
Legal remedies if a lower court ignores stare decisis?
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 ...
- 210k
8
votes
Do the observations of constitutional courts that are not necessary for deciding the case form binding precedents for lower courts?
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. ...
- 113k
8
votes
What happens when the opinion of the Court misrepresents the facts of the case?
US Supreme Court rule 44 provides for rehearing of cases.
If, for example, there is an error, a party may request rehearing of the case and if a justice who agreed with the original decision thinks ...
- 1,212
6
votes
Accepted
After US Supreme Court overturns precedent, are old cases revisited?
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 ...
- 2,810
6
votes
Accepted
Is there any legal recourse for a resident who believes their city is committing financial nonfeasance?
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 ...
- 195k
6
votes
How are affirmative defenses of duress and necessity treated in U.S. law?
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 ...
- 57.2k
6
votes
Accepted
During your trial, the Supreme Court of the US agrees to hear an appeal of a relevant precedent case. What is the law that you are presumed to know?
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 ...
- 195k
6
votes
Are non-recorded court decisions still binding?
In the U.K., there is a practice direction (see para. 10):
Where a judgment has not been reported, reference may be made to
the official transcript if that is available, not the handed-down text of ...
- 43.2k
5
votes
Accepted
Does statute take precedence over case law (in the US)?
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 ...
- 198k
5
votes
Is citing precedent official in the US court system?
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 ...
- 113k
5
votes
Accepted
How do concepts like intent, discrimination, and bias apply to an Artificial Intelligence agent?
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 ...
- 1,307
5
votes
Doesn't the use of precedent constitute a bandwagon fallacy?
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 ...
- 210k
5
votes
Trying to get sued?
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 ...
- 198k
5
votes
Technical basis for the binding nature of precedent or stare decisis
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 ...
- 113k
5
votes
Accepted
When courts set a new precedent, are the negatively impacted parties given any leniency?
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 ...
- 195k
5
votes
Accepted
Practically, what prevents judges from ignoring precedent?
Decisions that break with precedent do happen with some regularity, but far "from all the time" in the US. When they do happen, they are generally only at the top level of a state or federal ...
- 113k
5
votes
Can a previously binding precedent be overturned based on its rationale being outdated?
canada
Vertical stare decisis
Trial courts are generally bound by existing precedent from higher in the appellate hierarchy. This is the principle of vertical stare decisis.
However,
a trial judge ...
- 43.2k
4
votes
Can a sitting president of the United States be indicted by one of the states?
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 ...
- 914
4
votes
Accepted
What is the significance of dissenting opinions in appellate court decisions?
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'...
- 198k
Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible