Add to ORKGDoes the doctrine of stare decisis support judicial attempts to retheorize dubious precedents by putting them on firmer footing? If it does, can retheorization provide a means for Chevron to endure as a staple of administrative law notwithstanding serious challenges to its established rationale
In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided six cases involving federal agency interpretatio...
With the death of the reason for it, every legal doctrine dies.\u27 * * * The fact that the reason f...
In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, decided in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a startling new a...
Does the doctrine of stare decisis support judicial attempts to retheorize dubious precedents by put...
Conflicts between Chevron and stare decisis can arise in several contexts. Pierce first identifies t...
In the common law order, precedent is not only a matter of applying law but also of making law. The ...
In this article, the author discusses how Chevron intersects with one important competing norm - sta...
Stare decisis, the rule that judicial precedents should be followed, has been considered by American...
The doctrine of stare decisis remains a defining feature of American law despite challenges to its l...
Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential ...
In the United States Supreme Court, the concept of stare decisis operates as both metadoctrine and d...
Legal scholars and jurists believe that federal judges often defer to agency interpretations of stat...
Additional contributor: Timothy Johnson (faculty mentor).Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by,” is ...
This Article examines three facets of the relationship between statutory interpretation and the law ...
When courts deliberate on the implications of a precedent case in the adjudication of a new dispute,...
In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided six cases involving federal agency interpretatio...
With the death of the reason for it, every legal doctrine dies.\u27 * * * The fact that the reason f...
In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, decided in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a startling new a...
Does the doctrine of stare decisis support judicial attempts to retheorize dubious precedents by put...
Conflicts between Chevron and stare decisis can arise in several contexts. Pierce first identifies t...
In the common law order, precedent is not only a matter of applying law but also of making law. The ...
In this article, the author discusses how Chevron intersects with one important competing norm - sta...
Stare decisis, the rule that judicial precedents should be followed, has been considered by American...
The doctrine of stare decisis remains a defining feature of American law despite challenges to its l...
Stare decisis has been called many things, among them a principle of policy, a series of prudential ...
In the United States Supreme Court, the concept of stare decisis operates as both metadoctrine and d...
Legal scholars and jurists believe that federal judges often defer to agency interpretations of stat...
Additional contributor: Timothy Johnson (faculty mentor).Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by,” is ...
This Article examines three facets of the relationship between statutory interpretation and the law ...
When courts deliberate on the implications of a precedent case in the adjudication of a new dispute,...
In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided six cases involving federal agency interpretatio...
With the death of the reason for it, every legal doctrine dies.\u27 * * * The fact that the reason f...
In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, decided in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a startling new a...