Stare Decisis Case Study

opinion Essay
436 words
436 words

Q1- Should stare decisis be such a powerful doctrine that it trumps modern societal realities (such as baseball’s growing use of interstate commerce via radio and television)? Be sure to explain your answers. Stare decisis means a court will stand by a ruling previously issued in earlier cases. This method is used to determine rulings in lower courts as well. Once a court has issued a ruling, all lower courts must have the same response in future cases No and yes. No because, times are changing therefore decision should not be made based on previous decisions the reason I state this is, we have seen decision made in the past that were made unjustly or bias for example the Pace VS Alabama (1883) case about interracial relationships, however this was over turn after Loving VS Virginia, times changed and more people were being involved in interracial relationships, therefore stare decisis should …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Asks whether stare decisis is a powerful doctrine that trumps modern societal realities, such as baseball's growing use of interstate commerce via radio and television.
  • Explains that stare decisis means a court will stand by an earlier ruling in earlier cases. this method determines rulings in lower courts as well.
  • Opines that stare decisis should not be a powerful doctrine in some cases because times are changing and people are involved in interracial relationships.
  • Argues that stare decisis should be a powerful doctrine for future leaders who think they are untouchable to show them that courts can stand by previous rulings in earlier cases.
  • Opines that major league baseball should not be exempted from antitrust laws because the sherman act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses.

In Flood’s case he should have talked to a lawyer before signing a contract. Mr. Flood in my opinion has seen players been traded through out Baseball; surely he must have known there was a 50/50 chance that he might get traded to either a better team or a worse team. Another reason why I say they should not be exempted is because one of the purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses however in Mr. Flood case there is no abuse but rather he feared to play for a team that was not great and was known for having fans who were racist. Mr. Flood, has two option either leave and not get paid or wait a year in order to move to another

Get Access