Someone Looking in my window and 1am last night

[Woodrow]

To break it down (and I think the 9th Circuit will agree--but is it really such a good thing to be on the same legal page as California?), we have to follow the "decis" of previous court decisions. We arrive at that "decis" through the "ratio" of other courts in rendering their "decideni." That is what that 9th Circuit blurb is saying. The Principle of Stare Decis is a part of our system of Common Law and a fundamental part of the 10th Amendment. We don't just randomly assign decisions though. The Stare Decis is the sum total of Rationes Decidendi from other courts.

The quote is simply stating that Stare Decis can change with time as laws are developed and that we don't base all decisions going forward on all decisions (rationes decidendi) from the past.

 

[RichardR]

Cut and paste from Wikipedia all you want, brother. You don't seem to be understanding what it says. This isn't in depth legalese, it's basic concepts.

Yup, it sure is, I am not sure why you two seem to be having trouble with it, I even used three different colors to help illustrate the differences.

Maybe if I broke the sentences up a little, & made some of the words bigger it would help you two understand the differences.

"Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled."

Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision.

Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said."

Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases."

Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what,"

not for the "why,"

and not for the "how."

Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

Did that help at all?

 

[Woodrow]

...(and I think the 9th Circuit will agree--but is it really such a good thing to be on the same legal page as California?)...

The quote is simply stating that Stare Decis can change with time as laws are developed and that we don't base all decisions going forward on all decisions (rationes decidendi) from the past.

...

 

[RichardR]

To break it down (and I think the 9th Circuit will agree--but is it really such a good thing to be on the same legal page as California?), we have to follow the "decis" of previous court decisions. We arrive at that "decis" through the "ratio" of other courts in rendering their "decideni." That is what that 9th Circuit blurb is saying. The Principle of Stare Decis is a part of our system of Common Law and a fundamental part of the 10th Amendment. We don't just randomly assign decisions though. The Stare Decis is the sum total of Rationes Decidendi from other courts.

The quote is simply stating that Stare Decis can change with time as laws are developed and that we don't base all decisions going forward on all decisions (rationes decidendi) from the past.

Well the main difference I am pointing out is that stare decis is binding precedent while ratio decidendi is not.

There is a huge difference between binding precedent & persuasive precedent.

 

[Woodrow]

Okay, okay. This is going nowhere. Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Damn Professor Bender's classes were just as lively as this little session of post-mortem equine castigation.

 

[finity]

Woodrow,

Is RichardR's misunderstanding related to the fact that "the decision" isn't just the "conclusion", but is the entire opinion including the discussion part.

IOW, the whole thing is the "decision".

Is my understanding incorrect on that?

 

[Woodrow]

Woodrow,

Is RichardR's misunderstanding related to the fact that "the decision" isn't just the "conclusion", but is the entire opinion including the discussion part.

IOW, the whole thing is the "decision".

Is my understanding incorrect on that?

What he isn't understanding is that the decision is presumed to come from a generally accepted legal rational, and as such, those decisions must be honored going forward or the entire legal system will degenerate. Stare Decis means that the decisions of one court will be binding on another because the ratio decidendi follows general legal precedent (the judges weren't just making up laws).

I think that he is confusing the "why" from the quote as the obiter dicta which means other statements from a legal decision that are on the periphery. These aspects of a case are not binding and are not a part of the decision. So to answer your question, no, the whole thing isn't the decision, only the single factor that was decided, . i.e. A judge decided "A" because she doesn't think that 2+2=4. The decision is the precedent and the judges opinion about 2+2=4 is not binding. Lawyers will use it to best serve their client, but a judge does not have to factor every aspect of a case into a final decision.

In assessing a legal precedent, you must follow the reasoning of the previous court in order to apply the precedent.

 

[RichardR]

Woodrow,

Is RichardR's misunderstanding related to the fact that "the decision" isn't just the "conclusion", but is the entire opinion including the discussion part.

IOW, the whole thing is the "decision".

Is my understanding incorrect on that?

Under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," ...... not for the "why," ...... and not for the "how."

 

[RichardR]

What he isn't understanding is that the decision is presumed to come from a generally accepted legal rational, and as such, those decisions must be honored going forward or the entire legal system will degenerate. Stare Decis means that the decisions of one court will be binding on another because the ratio decidendi follows general legal precedent (the judges weren't just making up laws).

Again there is a difference between binding precedent & persuasive precedent, binding must be adhered to while persuasive may be adhered to.

I think that he is confusing the "why" from the quote as the obiter dicta which means other statements from a legal decision that are on the periphery. These aspects of a case are not binding and are not a part of the decision. that's what I've been saying So to answer your question, no, the whole thing isn't the decision, only the single factor that was decided. I.e. A judge decided a because she doesn't think that 2+2=4. The decision is the precedent and the judges opinion about 2+2=4 is not binding. Lawyers will use it to best serve their client, but a judge does not have to factor every aspect of a case into a final decision.



In assessing a legal precedent, you must follow the reasoning of the previous court in order to apply the precedent.

That is incorrect, the reasoning (ratio) of a previous court [STRIKE]must[/STRIKE] may be adhered to as a persuasive precedent, but the decision (decisis) must be adhered to as it is a binding precedent.

You two do know the difference between may & must right?

 

[RichardR]

To put it as simply as I can: you may drive past a stop sign, but you must stop at it first.

 

[finity]

What he isn't understanding is that the decision is presumed to come from a generally accepted legal rational, and as such, those decisions must be honored going forward or the entire legal system will degenerate. Stare Decis means that the decisions of one court will be binding on another because the ratio decidendi follows general legal precedent (the judges weren't just making up laws).

I think that he is confusing the "why" from the quote as the obiter dicta which means other statements from a legal decision that are on the periphery. These aspects of a case are not binding and are not a part of the decision. So to answer your question, no, the whole thing isn't the decision, only the single factor that was decided, . i.e. A judge decided "A" because she doesn't think that 2+2=4. The decision is the precedent and the judges opinion about 2+2=4 is not binding. Lawyers will use it to best serve their client, but a judge does not have to factor every aspect of a case into a final decision.

In assessing a legal precedent, you must follow the reasoning of the previous court in order to apply the precedent.

Ok I think I've got it. Thanks for the correction.

 

[RichardR]

In assessing a legal precedent, you must follow the reasoning of the previous court in order to apply the precedent.

Cart before the horse.

The "what" must match before the "why" can be applied.

For instance a prior decision (decisis) on pointing a firearm = the "what"

Now the reasoning (ratio) = "why" a similar adjudication should be reached in the case currently before the court.

 

[Woodrow]

Ok I think I've got it. Thanks for the correction.

Any time, brother. If I hadn't sat there for hours upon hours having these terms bored into my head, I'd be of little use I suppose...

Think about it like this, Judges like to write a lot and tell people what they think. Their general opinion doesn't really matter, but it does turn up in their legal decision, however, this isn't a part of the decision that set's precedence. Only the actual ruling regarding the issue at hand and the court's reasoning for doing such set's precedence.

That's the gist of ratio decidenti, 'what was the court saying when the decision was rendered'? How could we understand a court's decision if they didn't explain it for other courts to follow.

None of this really had anything to do with the OP, though. I should have set up a thread.

Localone made the right call. One can always look back and find mistakes in behavior, but at go time, it's hard to know what one would do.