Stare Decisis Case Study

Principles he argued acted not merely as a guide but also as a restraint upon judges; he argued this was crucial to ensure both legal certainty and to reduce the prospect of judges acting outwith their powers for justification. Judges therefore would be expected to weigh in legal principles, as well as legal rules when reaching their judgment. This is a somewhat accurate analysis, particularly when the concept of stare decisis is considered, which is the doctrine where courts of equal or lower standing are bound previous court decisions on similar principles. In practice this binds the judiciary to past legal principles in most cases; Dworkin however failed to account for when judges ought to depart from established principles. In particular where judges feel it would be detrimental to continue to follow past precedent. The following example sets out a case where judges broke with past principle after they felt the existing precedent was

Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 the Judiciary branch has enabled federal, state and district level judges to proceed over court cases and bestow difficult decisions. For over 200 years an array of different and distinct judges have possessed this judicial role allowing them to preside over hearings and issue judgment based rulings Consequentially, the perspectives and beliefs held by each individual judge heavily influences their final assessments and verdicts. For this reason a substantial amount of attention must be placed upon each justice’s unique attitudes and viewpoints. Whether it be political association, personal principles, or religious affiliation, every specific factor contributes to their final decision. One set of particular labels judges often receive in regards to their explicit traits and characteristics involves constitution interpretation methods. With categorization including originalist and extremist among others, judicial officials are typically classified based off the way they decipher the constitution. One approach in particular is known as minimalism. Minimalist attempt to address issues through a case-by-case manner and rule vary narrowly. This technique possesses many advantages and a well as some possible liabilities. In his book One case at a Time, Professor Cass Sunstein illustrates many benefits and creates several arguments favoring the idea of settling cases independently rather than collectively. Presenting strong opinions supporting judicial minimalism, Sunstein effectively esteems this theory.

As long has there has been business, Management and Labor have warred against each other for a bigger piece of the pie. Major League Baseball is no different. In the early years of professional baseball the owners controlled the salaries of the players and decided where they could play and what they would be paid. The players were bound to their team by the Reserve Clause that stated, the services of a player will be reserved exclusively for that team for the next season. This resulted in keeping the player’s salaries artificially low because the players were not allowed to offer their services to any other team. The Reserve Clause was in effect for more than One Hundred years of baseball history. It was challenged several times but the owners had won every time, until in 1970 when the St. Louis Cardinals traded outfielder Curt Flood to the Philadelphia Phillies. Flood refused to play for the Phillies and sued to become a free-agent. Flood’s case was in court for several years going all the way to the Supreme Court. He was never able to play in the Major League again. While he did not win his case, he laid the groundwork for a later case that involved two pitchers, Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally who filed a grievance against the league contending that, because they didn't sign contracts with their previous teams they were free agents. The owners and the Players Association agreed to submit to binding, impartial, arbitration in order to settle this case. On December 23, 1975 the arbitrator Peter Seitz ruled in favor of the players and the Reserve Clause was broken, and the era of free agency began in the Major Leagues. In 1976 when free agency began the average player salary was only $52 thousand dollars, but it has increased steadily ever since. By 1990 the average salary for a Major League Baseball player had risen to $589 thousand dollars. This Year baseball will start the 2001 season with an average player salary of more than $2 million, about 40 times higher than the typical wage in 1976 when free agency began.

Prior to free agency was implemented, individual players were controlled by teams within the MLB to a much greater extent than the current situation. Players’ contracts included reserve clauses, which essentially bound players to a team. Essentially, players could only move teams if they were traded or released. In 1969, Curt Flood who was an outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals of the MLB at the time, became known as the first professional athlete to challenge the reverse clause. Flood believed the reverse clause went against antitrust laws and his 13th Amendment rights. Once he realized he was being traded to the Philadelphia Phillies, Flood communicated to Bowie Kuhn, the baseball commissioner that he should be able to consider contracts offered by other teams prior to deciding. However, Kuhn rejected his petition, which triggered Flood to sue the MLB for violating antitrust laws.

The 1960’s were a decade of upheaval. Outcry spilled out into the streets as angry demonstrators protested against the Vietnam War; Civil Rights marches occupied a segregated South; and the Black Power movement swept through the Negro community with persuasive authority. In the midst of all of this social change stood one man, St. Louis Cardinal’s centerfielder Curt Flood. Fueled by the turmoil of his times, Flood started his own social movement, a one-man struggle for freedom on the baseball diamond. Flood an accomplished baseball player had endured twelve years in the Major Leagues, a victim of unwarranted discrimination in a still racist nation. In 1969, Flood became a pioneer, making an historic decision that ended his baseball career at the age of 31. Against the advice of the Major League Baseball’s Players Union, Flood refused to accept his trade to the Philadelphia Phillies after the end of the 1969 season. When Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn refused to let him out of baseball’s reserve clause, which allowed for a player to be traded without his consent and made it impossible for a player to choose to play for another team, Flood took his case all the way to the Supreme Court (Ashe 61). When the case finally made its way through the courts system, Flood’s playing career was lost but a whole new era of baseball had begun. Flood stands as the pivotal figure that changed the balance of power in the game.

Sports: How the Sherman Act Subverts Collective Bargaining”. Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011. Accessed February 10, 2014. Academic Elite.

Skyler Seamons 9:30 Straton Judge Deez Nuts Are Guud The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments.

Curt Flood fought for free agency because he didn't want to be traded to the Philadelphia Phillies. He went to court for it. He changed baseball by going to court for free agency. It modern day Aroldis Chapman was a free agent and singed with the New York Yankees. Aroldis Chapman is getting paid 11.32 million. This is how far and still going Curt Flood's fight for free angecy is so important. ​Most black baseball stars—Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Ernie Banks—were all but invisible during the Civil Rights movement, so Flood's activism was years ahead of its time. When it came time for him to take a stand on being traded to Philadelphia, he was ready. "I do not regard myself as a piece of property to be bought or sold," he famously told Commissioner

-Facts: -Issue: 4 Elements - Men's Rea= Criminal Intent - Actus Rea= Wrongful Act - Concurrence of the Act= -Theory of Law: -Conclusion: How they ruled the case · Mala in Se= Acts that are bad in itself, to be punished · Mala Prohibita= Acts that are made crimes by the State or Local Laws Loving V. Commonwealth of Virginia 388 U.S. 1 U.S. Supreme Court June 12, 1967 Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.

To capture the social dimension of the European union, various studies have been carried out and some scholars have highlighted the problems in establishing the social policy, whilst others claim that the European dimension is evolving and already in place. The European Court of Justice has been very helpful, its importance is highly visible in the evolution of European Social policy in terms of integration. In this essay I will be looking at the extent to which the Court of justice has influenced the development of the social dimension of the European Union by identifying those areas they exercised their powers.