Verification Re: your understanding of precedent

[Jeffrey T. Renz]

I haven't read the Segal and Spaeth study, but I have to guess that it
follows up on a study that Spaeth published with Brenner, Stare
Indecisis, (Cambridge Press 1995.)  They looked at the Hughes, Vinson,
Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts behavior when overruling prior
precedent.  They described two models, the "legal model" by which judges
voted to uphold precedent on the basis of institutional stare decisis
and an "attitudinal model," by which judges voted to uphold precedent on
the basis of "personal" stare decisis.  The results were mixed, but
tended to support the view that U.S.S.Ct. judges tended to vote along
attitudinal lines.

Jeff Renz

Frank Cross wrote:

> Well, I don't buy fully into the Segal & Spaeth study, but it should
> not
> be dismissed quite so readily.  If precedent means anything, it means
> relying on prior decisions that the judge believes may be wrong,
> otherwise
> it's superfluous.  How would you test for this?  What is the
> theoretical
> case for distinguishing precedents that must be followed from those
> that
> need not be?  It's got to be something more than time or acceptance,
> or Plessy would still be law.
>
> Frank Cross
> Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
> CBA 5.202
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, TX 78712


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000718/1d99f71b/attachment.htm