This Comment contends that under limited circumstances lower courts may refuse to follow authoritative precedent. The Comment begins by distinguishing the doctrine of stare decisis in the Supreme Court and the doctrine as applied to lower courts. Next, the Comment discusses the doctrine of implicit overrule and suggests that the concept of implicit overrule is not sufficiently broad to encompass all of the circumstances in which lower courts should be allowed to disregard precedent. Using McCray as a paradigm, this Comment concludes that lower courts, within narrow limits, should be free to disregard even authoritative precedent when it is predictable that the Supreme Court would no longer follow the precedent
Drastic changes in Supreme Court doctrine require citizens to reorder their affairs rapidly, undermi...
While circuit courts are bound to fallow circuit precedent under law of the circuit the practice a...
While almost all questions before the Supreme Court require statutory or constitutional interpretati...
Stare decisis is an integral, accepted principle of American and common-law jurisprudence. The idea ...
Stare decisis is an integral, accepted principle of American and common-law jurisprudence. The idea ...
What if an apparently relevant precedent has been eroded by one or more later decisions? One might e...
This Article, a contribution to a symposium on constitutional foundations, maintains that an unappre...
The principle of stare decisis in United States courts appears in two aspects – the courts of lower ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has long embraced the doctrine of stare decisis as an appropr...
At the United States Supreme Court, what is old is new again. In a series of recent opinions,1 the j...
In the United States Supreme Court, the concept of stare decisis operates as both metadoctrine and d...
Supreme Court precedent is a topic of perennial prominence. The Court overruled or severely limited ...
The rule of stare decisis creates a presumption that a court’s ruling on a legal question remains bi...
The principle of stare decisis in United States courts appears in two aspects – the courts of lower ...
Stare decisis, the rule that judicial precedents should be followed, has been considered by American...
Drastic changes in Supreme Court doctrine require citizens to reorder their affairs rapidly, undermi...
While circuit courts are bound to fallow circuit precedent under law of the circuit the practice a...
While almost all questions before the Supreme Court require statutory or constitutional interpretati...
Stare decisis is an integral, accepted principle of American and common-law jurisprudence. The idea ...
Stare decisis is an integral, accepted principle of American and common-law jurisprudence. The idea ...
What if an apparently relevant precedent has been eroded by one or more later decisions? One might e...
This Article, a contribution to a symposium on constitutional foundations, maintains that an unappre...
The principle of stare decisis in United States courts appears in two aspects – the courts of lower ...
The Supreme Court of the United States has long embraced the doctrine of stare decisis as an appropr...
At the United States Supreme Court, what is old is new again. In a series of recent opinions,1 the j...
In the United States Supreme Court, the concept of stare decisis operates as both metadoctrine and d...
Supreme Court precedent is a topic of perennial prominence. The Court overruled or severely limited ...
The rule of stare decisis creates a presumption that a court’s ruling on a legal question remains bi...
The principle of stare decisis in United States courts appears in two aspects – the courts of lower ...
Stare decisis, the rule that judicial precedents should be followed, has been considered by American...
Drastic changes in Supreme Court doctrine require citizens to reorder their affairs rapidly, undermi...
While circuit courts are bound to fallow circuit precedent under law of the circuit the practice a...
While almost all questions before the Supreme Court require statutory or constitutional interpretati...