Not exact matches
The
Supreme Court will probably rule against gay marriage based on Stare
Decisis of the California voter's decision in Proposition 22.
«As a general rule, the
Supreme Court adheres to precedent, citing the doctrine of stare
decisis («to stand by a decision»).
I guess the
Supreme Court issued another banal decision which reinforces the legal wisdom of going before the courts as either a crap shoot or the judges decide based on personal ideological predilections and wrapped up in res or
decisis.
(7) The Court of Appeal should not refuse to overturn a decision on the basis of precedent, or stare
decisis, because leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada is not automatic and Canada's highest court can not therefore be relied upon to resolve any inconsistencies that result from differing rulings by the Court of Appeal on a particular issue.
As mentioned in Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court before the California
Supreme Court and as brought in the Wikipedia article on precedent: «under the doctrine of stare
decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction.»
«If we obtain leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada, they aren't bound by their earlier decision,» she tells Legal Feeds, adding she and her colleagues didn't believe stare
decisis should determine the outcome since they raised different arguments from those in Rodriguez.
Their ruling focused on the notion of stare
decisis given that the
Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Rodriguez v. British Columbia 20 years ago that upheld the law.
Counsel Alison Latimer says the appeal court took a «very cautious approach to stare
decisis» and notes the plaintiffs will be seeking leave to appeal from the
Supreme Court of Canada.
An otherwise mind - numbing
Supreme Court ruling this morning nonetheless contains an interesting debate among the justices about an issue that often comes up during confirmation hearings: stare
decisis, or the importance of respecting precedent.
U. L. Rev. 757, 770 (1995)(«Published opinions that state the facts and the reasoning upon which decisions rest are essential to the operation of stare
decisis...»); William M. Richman & William L. Reynolds, The
Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions: A Critique, 46 Ohio St. L.J. 313, 314 (1985)(«The development of «hidden» precedents mocks the concept of stare
decisis...»).
Validly (in the stare
decisis sense of validly) stating otherwise is open to the
Supreme Court of Canada.
While some have characterized the majority decision in Carter as a narrow application of stare
decisis to avoid dealing with the merits, a closer look reveals an important contemporary appellate endorsement of the underlying rationale for the prohibition on assisted suicide as articulated by the
Supreme Court of Canada in Rodriguez.
With the
Supreme Court of Canada able to address the stare
decisis issues in the Bedford appeal, it has a genuine opportunity to decline leave in Carter if it so wishes.