the process of using legal precedent based on prior decisions is
Texas Courts of Appeals


to reconsider a prior panel decision and to assure consistency in the court's jurisprudence. The "en banc" process is also used to overrule prior precedent of the same court that its panels are bound by. The precedents established by a court of appeals are binding on the lower courts in its district. The First and Fourteenth Court of Appeals, sitting in Houston, have overlapping appellate districts, and occasionally hand down conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. Such conflicts may ultimately be resolved by the Texas Supreme Court (in
21879822
Taylor v. Louisiana


the rule. The Supreme Court "changed its mind and ruled the affirmative registration process was unconstitutional:" On the secondary issue of standing, it held: The Courts' reasoning was based heavily on the precedent from prior case law: "The Court's prior cases are instructive": "Duncan v. Louisiana" appears to have been especially important to the court for use as a precedent. It was a significant United States Supreme Court decision, which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the
21929829
Precedent


or "landmark decisions" that are cited especially often. Generally speaking, a legal precedent is said to be: In civil law systems, past decisions may influence future decisions, even if they do not have the precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making. "Stare decisis" () is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim "Stare decisis et non quieta movere"
3273618
United States v. Willow River Power Co.


cannot start the process of decision by calling such a claim as we have here a "property right;" whether it is a property right is really the question to be answered. Such economic uses are rights only when they are legally protected interests. After considering precedents governing rights to a head of water when the tailrace was in a navigable stream or a non-navigable stream, the Court concluded that no prior case had dealt with precisely the situation (present here) where the top of the tailrace was at a
14789040
Administrative Appeals Office


acquire the status of precedent decisions. This means they become legally binding on all DHS components that deal with the law. Precedent decisions therefore carry more force than adopted decisions, which in turn carry more force than other non-precedent decisions. Precedent decisions may be modified or overruled by: Although not legally bound by them, federal courts generally give more deference to precedent decisions, and decisions using similar reasoning as precedent decisions, than to non-precedent decisions, The AAO releases data on the number of appeals of each decision
6471842
Gonzales v. Carhart


struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban and held that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion, "under precedents we here assume to be controlling," such as the Court's prior decisions in "Roe v. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood v. Casey." In a legal sense, the case distinguished but did not overrule "Stenberg v. Carhart" (2000), in which the Court dealt with
17636690
Precedent


: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed". In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. The principle can be divided into two components: The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions. In the common-law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedent, which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike
3273619
In re Bilski


impose the limitations on 'process' now created by this court." In short, Judge Newman felt that the current definition of the word process used by the court directly contradicted the statute, the precedent, and the constitutional mandate to promote the useful arts and science. Because the court's decision could affect thousands of patents already granted, Newman warned of uncertainty in patent eligible matter which serves as a disincentive to innovation. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision on appeal, it was widely reported that the "Bilski"
3924209
Califano v. Goldfarb


upheld the decision of the District Court. Justice Brennan's opinion, which was joined by Justice White, Justice Marshall, and Justice Powell, determined that the gender-based distinction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court agreed with Ginsburg's arguments, noting that the distinction in the federal requirements "deprive[s] women of protection for their families which men receive as a result of their employment." The Court based its decision on the precedent established in prior cases "Frontiero" and "Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld:""Weinberger
12276190
Multiple-criteria decision analysis


's preference information at the start of the process, transforming the problem into essentially a single criterion problem. These methods are said to operate by "prior articulation of preferences". Methods based on estimating a value function or using the concept of "outranking relations", analytical hierarchy process, and some decision rule-based methods try to solve multiple criteria evaluation problems utilizing prior articulation of preferences. Similarly, there are methods developed to solve multiple-criteria design problems using prior articulation of preferences by constructing a value function. Perhaps
21398985
Judicial system in the United Arab Emirates


The legal system of the United Arab Emirates is based on the Constitution of the United Arab Emirates; this system is dual in nature as it has local and federal courts with a Supreme Court Based at Abu Dhabi. Unlike Britain and other countries where previous court judgments are regularly used as legal precedents, the UAE does not depend that much on precedents, although sometimes the judgments of higher courts can be applied by lower courts in similar cases. Where legislative provisions do not cover a specific issue, the court will make a decision
4842660
Harold Hongju Koh


American constitutional ideas but, rather, part and parcel of the global human rights movement" Koh has traced the influence of decisions from foreign courts throughout the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and the American court system. Critics of this approach argue that citing foreign decisions as legal precedents threatens American sovereignty and "lends itself to manipulation." Other commentators have observed that the "use of such nonbinding sources to bolster legal arguments is a central and uncontroversial tenet of the American judicial process." On May 12, 2009, the
3343307
Harold Hongju Koh


law and its use in American legal analysis and jurisprudence, while drawing support from other conservatives such as Ted Olson and Kenneth Starr as well as "Forbes" magazine. Koh has written in support of the practice of using tenets of international law and foreign legal precedent to inform the deliberative process of judicial decision making in the United States, and has described what he has called "transnational jurisprudence" as essential to maintaining a well-ordered international legal system. Arguing that "concepts like liberty, equality and privacy are not exclusively
3343306
Gideon v. Wainwright


-by-case analysis, but instead established the requirement of appointed counsel as a matter of right, without a defendant's having to show "special circumstances" that justified the appointment of counsel. In this way, the case helped to refine "stare decisis": when a prior appellate court decision should be upheld and what standard should be applied to test a new case against case precedent to achieve acceptable practice and due process of law. Many changes have been made in the prosecution and legal representation of indigent defendants since
15766631
Brief (law)


based on legal precedent and citations to the controlling cases or statutory law. To achieve these ends, the brief must appeal to the accepted forces such as statutory law or precedent, but may also include policy arguments and social statistics when appropriate. For example, if the law is vague or broad enough to allow the appellate judge some discretion in his decision making, an exploration of the consequences of the possible decision outside of legal formalism may provide guidance. Such arguments may also support a legal argument when the purpose of the law
1191347
Court system of Canada


tribunal adjudicator could legally make a decision that differs from a past decision, on the same subject and issues, delivered by the highest court in the land. Because a tribunal is not bound by legal precedent, established by itself or by a reviewing court, a tribunal is not a court even though it performs an important adjudicative function and contributes to the development of law like a court would do. Although "stare decisis" does not apply to tribunals, their adjudicators will likely nonetheless find a prior court decision on a similar
9478838
New York Times Co. v. United States


decision, the court first established the legal question with the use of precedents. It first stated that "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity". The purpose of this statement was to make the presence of the inherent conflict between the Government's efforts and the First Amendment clear. The decision then stated that the government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint". This reinforced the idea that it was the Nixon
1877239
Same-sex marriage in Mexico


marriages to be performed in the state. A 2012 Oaxaca case was pivotal in opening the door to legal same-sex marriage in every state in Mexico, through the "recurso de amparo" process. Using international decisions, whose verdicts serve as legal precedent in Mexican courts, like the protections in the American Convention on Human Rights "Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile" case, the U.S. cases "Loving v. Virginia" and "Brown v. Board of Education" and Mexico's own anti-discrimination ordinances, the Supreme
15956654
Source-monitoring error


about a source when relevant information is of a certain significance and the memory occurring at a certain time or place makes sense logically; errors then occur based on the amount of information stored at encoding or the way that an individual's brain makes decisions based on prior experiences. Within the source-monitoring framework, "heuristic" is a type of decision process; this term is directly related to the psychological heuristics. Systematic judgements are decision processes whose procedures are accessed consciously by the individual; the same types of information used in
17950206
Precedent


, persuasive authority and analogies from prior rulings by other courts (which may be higher, peers, or lower courts in the hierarchy, or from other jurisdictions), commentaries and articles by legal scholars, and the court's own logic and sense of justice. The different roles of case law in civil law and common law traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often an
3273668
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission


special interest in aesthetic, conservational, and recreational aspects" of the mountain. This was the first decision of a court to grant standing on such terms, and established a precedent to allow similar public-based environmental groups to engage in legal processes. As Justice Hays stated, "the cost of a project is only one of several factors to be considered" in addition to "the preservation of natural beauty and national historic sites" as a basic concern. This 1965 ruling helped to establish the legitimacy of environmental issues and
9771080
Hollingsworth v. Perry


and the reasons why they wished to marry. Following the Supreme Court's decision in "Christian Legal Society v. Martinez" on June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs in "Perry" cited the decision by Justice Ginsburg as Supreme Court precedent that sexual orientation is "an identifiable class" in opposition to the defense's argument that sexual orientation is "behavioral". Christian Legal Society had asserted that it did not restrict membership based on sexual orientation but based on "conduct and "belief" that the conduct is not wrong"
15202856
Kosovo independence precedent


considerations of notorious political expediency. We consider it unacceptable to do what was done in the Kosovo precedent – to use the lack of progress at negotiations as the reason for unilateral actions, including recognition of new international legal entities." and that the solution to the Kosovo problem should be based upon "the international law, decisions of the UN, resolutions of the UN Security Council and, primarily, Resolution 1244". Armenia's Deputy Parliament Speaker Vahan Hovhannisyan has said Kosovo's independence will influence the settlement of the dispute over
8869506
Case-based reasoning


Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. An auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry), is treating nature as a database of
6845001
Decision management


data, prior decisions, and their outcomes. Decision management is described as an "emerging important discipline, due to an increasing need to automate high-volume decisions across the enterprise and to impart precision, consistency, and agility in the decision-making process". Decision management is implemented "via the use of rule-based systems and analytic models for enabling high-volume, automated decision making". Organizations seek to improve the value created through each decision by deploying software solutions (generally developed using BRMS and predictive analytics
11252593
Legal research in the United States


Legal research is the process of identifying and retrieving information to support legal arguments and decisions. Finding relevant legal information can be challenging and may involve the use of electronic research tools as well as printed books and materials. However, many resources that are useful for legal research are fee-based, and many are not easily accessible. There is no one right way to do legal research. There are however practices that have proven to be more efficient and cost effective. A general search strategy might be: You may be able
7140568
Lists of landmark court decisions


Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case" as used in the United States. In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a "leading decision" when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian
16816270
Law of California


"Supplement" to the "California Appellate Reports". The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) is the court case management and electronic court filing (e-filing) system intended for use by the several courts, though development has been stalled since 2012. Since then, all courts not yet on CCMS have resorted to a variety of alternative solutions. Even when a prior legal decision does not create a binding precedent, the text of the court's opinion may still help lawyers and judges understand California law. Some
7862189
Environmental impact assessment


actions of federal agencies must be preceded by the NEPA process. Contrary to a widespread misconception, NEPA does not prohibit the federal government or its licensees/permittees from harming the environment, nor does it specify any penalty if an environmental impact assessment turns out to be inaccurate, intentionally or otherwise. NEPA requires that plausible statements as to the prospective impacts be disclosed in advance. The purpose of NEPA process is to ensure that the decision maker is fully informed of the environmental aspects and consequences prior to making the final decision. An
9757205
Regulation of chemicals


and the environment from potential harm; • to contribute to the environmentally sound use of those hazardous chemicals, by facilitating information exchange about their characteristics, by providing for a national decision-making process on their import and export and by disseminating these decisions to Parties. The text of the Convention was adopted on 10 September 1998 by a Conference in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The Convention entered into force on 24 February 2004. The Convention creates legally binding obligations for the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. Basel
13983139
Precedent


exegesis of the wider legal principles. These are called "ratio decidendi" and constitute a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called "obiter dicta", which have persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short, referring only to statutes, not very analytical, and fact-based. The reason for this difference is that these civil law jurisdictions apply legislative positivism — a form of extreme legal positivism
3273669
Legal opinion


profile matter of general public interest and the court wishes to make the details of its ruling public. In the majority of US cases, the judges issue a "memorandum decision" that indicates how state or federal law applies to the case and affirms or reverses the decision of the lower court. A memorandum decision does not establish legal precedent or re-interpret the law, and cannot be invoked in subsequent cases to justify a ruling. Opinions, on the other hand, "always" establish a particular legal interpretation.
20622987
Precedent


having less precedential value. Selective publication is the legal process which a judge or justices of a court decide whether a decision is to be or not published in a reporter. "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the Federal Appendix. Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished. Litigation that is settled out of court generates no written decision, thus has no precedential effect. As one practical effect, the U.S. Department of Justice settles many cases against the federal government simply to
3273659
Posek


process of analysis usually entails today: The ruling itself is an attempt to apply the precedents and principles of the Tradition to the question being asked. One common goal of poskim in this regard is, as far as possible, to be consistent with the codified law, as well as with the maximal relevant legal precedents, generally being decisions recorded in the responsa literature. Poskim play an integral role in Orthodox Judaism in general and Haredi Judaism in particular. The approach taken here will, generally, be as above. Thus "
20396657
Sagong Tasi


"Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli", or JHEOA) prior recognition of the existence of the Temuan community at Kampong Bukit Tampoi, Selangor. The identification of the Temuan as 'aboriginal people' allowed the counsel for the plaintiffs and Judge to draw on other national and international legal precedents in discussing the issue of native title land rights and common law rights for aboriginal people. In deriving features of native title and common law rights for aboriginal peoples, the Judge ruled that: These features were based on national and international legal precedents
10697025
First Apology of Justin Martyr


There has been significant scholarly debate about the extent to which Justin’s Apologies differed from prior and future apologetic discourse. Paul Parvis, a prominent Justin scholar from the University of Edinburgh, has noted that the "First Apology" is unlike any apology that preceded it. It presents itself as legal petition, a standard Roman administrative genre that seeks to change a legal precedent (in this case, asking Christians to be charged based on evil deeds rather than for being Christian in and of itself). But by including the descriptions
8094606
Legal code (municipal)


of the punishment is intended to be commensurate with the severity of the offence. Since there are different types of codes, with differing levels of public safety impact, the severity of consequences and punishment varies. Violating the noise control code inside an apartment may just annoy the neighbours. Building and fire code violations, however, can affect anyone inside and even surrounding a building. Perpetrators include, but are not limited to the following: For predictability, a legal code usually includes a body of prior decisions or precedent, which with
11313980
Common law


system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of Central and South America. The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent. In common law jurisdictions, nearly every case that presents a "bona fide" disagreement on the law is resolved in a written opinion. The legal reasoning for the decision, known as "ratio decidendi", not only determines the court's judgment between the parties, but also stands as precedent for resolving future disputes. In contrast, civil law decisions
5058952
Same-sex marriage in Oaxaca


Mexico, through the injunction (amparo) process. Using international decisions, whose verdicts serve as legal precedent in Mexican courts, like the protections in the American Convention on Human Rights "Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile" case, the U.S. cases "Loving v. Virginia" and "Brown v. Board of Education", and Mexico's own anti-discrimination ordinances, the Court ruled on 5 December 2012 that: 1) Laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, or for the purposes of perpetuating the species,
15167988
Consensus decision-making


process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of applying this process. As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be: Consensus decision-making is an alternative to commonly practiced group decision-making processes. "Robert's Rules of Order", for instance, is a guide book used by many organizations. This book allows the structuring of debate and passage
4318622
Civil law (legal system)


Civil law, or civilian law, is a legal system originating in Europe, intellectualized within the framework of Roman law, the main feature of which is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems, the intellectual framework of which comes from judge-made decisional law, and gives precedential authority to prior court decisions, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent,
21173832
Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States


Non-publication of legal opinions is the practice of a court issuing unpublished opinions. An unpublished opinion is a decision of a court that is not available for citation as precedent because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value. In the system of common law, each judicial decision becomes part of the body of law used in future decisions. However, some courts reserve certain decisions, leaving them "unpublished", and thus not available for citation in future cases. It has been argued that non-publication helps
18815594
Exhausted combination doctrine


, even though it was an exhausted combination, the claims drafter might have avoided the holding of nonstatutory subject matter. It is possible that careful claims drafting techniques will succeed in elevating form over substance, to avoid the impact of the machine-or-transformation test. The preceding analysis may have been overtaken by the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in "Alice v. CLS Bank". In that case the Court confirmed and extended the legal analysis of its prior decisions in "Parker v. Flook" and "Mayo v. Prometheus"
16965371
Deliberation


Deliberation is a process of thoughtfully weighing options, usually prior to voting. Deliberation emphasizes the use of logic and reason as opposed to power-struggle, creativity, or dialog. Group decisions are generally made after deliberation through a vote or consensus of those involved. In legal settings a jury famously uses deliberation because it is given specific options, like guilty or not guilty, along with information and arguments to evaluate. In "deliberative democracy", the aim is for both elected officials and the general public to use deliberation rather
18459193
Arthur Sifton


from his decisions specifically because he rarely provided reasons. Much of his work was in criminal law, dealing especially with theft of livestock (in which cases he generally delivered a sentence of three years hard labour, severe by the standards of the day). By the end of his judicial career, he had convicted as many Americans as Canadians. His rulings were generally concerned with practicalities rather than legal theory, based more on social morality than legal precedent, and he did not establish any important precedents. In 1907, Sifton
8565318
Legal expert system


in the 1970s and 1980s. Lawyers were originally identified as primary target users of legal expert systems. Potential motivations for this work included: Some early development work was oriented toward the creation of automated judges. Later work on legal expert systems has identified potential benefits to non-lawyers as a means to increase access to legal knowledge. Legal expert systems can also support administrative processes, facilitating decision making processes, automating rule-based analyses and exchanging information directly with citizen-users. Rule-based expert systems rely on a model
7153325
Fundamental rights


privileges or immunities" to all U.S. citizens, in a series of cases called the Slaughterhouse cases. This decision and others allowed post-emancipation racial discrimination to continue largely unabated. Later Supreme Court justices found a way around these limitations without overturning the Slaughterhouse precedent: they created a concept called Selective Incorporation. Under this legal theory, the court used the remaining 14th Amendment protections for equal protection and due process to "incorporate" individual elements of the Bill of Rights against the states. "The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality
4758997
Case citation


Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information. A legal citation is a "reference to a legal precedent or authority, such as a case, statute, or treatise, that either substantiates or contradicts a given position." Where cases are published on paper
16869593
Legal system of Saudi Arabia


uncodified and because judges are not bound by judicial precedent, the scope and content of the law is uncertain. A study published by the Albert Shanker Institute and Freedom House has criticized a number of aspects of the administration of justice in Saudi Arabia and concluded that the country's "practices diverge from the concept of the rule of law." The study goes on to assert that qadis (judges) reach decisions without following due process and "only the bravest of lawyers ... challenge decisions of the qadis; usually appeals to the
1899172
Board of Immigration Appeals


allowed by statute. Most opinions of the BIA are unpublished and do not apply outside of the cases in which they were issued. However, a limited number of BIA decisions are selected for publication in the Administrative Decisions under the Immigration and Nationality Laws of the United States. There are currently 28 volumes of administrative precedent decisions under the Immigration and Nationality laws encompassing decisions dating back to 1940. BIA precedent decisions are legally binding on all components of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A precedent decision may be overruled by
8796531
Bob McCulloch (prosecutor)


jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar." "The New Yorker"'s legal analyst, attorney Jeffrey Toobin, criticized McCulloch for implementing "a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else", and stated that despite the effort to represent the process as "an independent evaluation of the evidence", McCulloch remained in control of the process. Toobin wrote that in the presentation of the grand jury decision, McCulloch cherry-picked
15655352
Precedent


endorsed the term or the concept. Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in
3273647
Artificial cardiac pacemaker


occasionally inhibiting a single beat. Cellphones available in the United States (less than 3 watts) do not seem to damage pulse generators or affect how the pacemaker works. A panel of The Heart Rhythm Society, a specialist organization based in Washington, DC found that it was legal and ethical to honor requests by patients, or by those with legal authority to make decisions for patients, to deactivate implanted cardiac devices. Lawyers say that the legal situation is similar to removing a feeding tube, though there is currently no legal precedent
2821000
Creationism


to evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court. This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous US Supreme Court decisions in "Edwards v. Aguillard" and "Epperson v. Arkansas" (1968), and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching intelligent design in public school districts in other federal court jurisdictions. In astronomy, the geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is a description of the Cosmos where Earth is at the
5060164
Michigan Court of Appeals


, similarly to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Like most appellate courts, the Court of Appeals observes the principle of "stare decisis", where a court's reasoning in its past precedents binds its present decisions. When a panel of the court disagrees with a prior precedent, it must abide by the earlier decision in deciding the case at hand. When a panel expresses its disagreement with a prior precedent, there is a mechanism to convene a special 7-member "conflict panel" (similar to the "en banc" procedure
6471408
Law of California


other states are often cited in California appellate opinions, particularly when the out-of-state decisions disagree with one another. However, this occurs less in California than in smaller jurisdictions, because the state's tremendous size guarantees that most legal issues have already been decided by some prior California court. Decisions from federal courts are also frequently cited as a source of persuasive authority about California law, even by the California Supreme Court. Although California courts have no obligation to follow federal precedents about matters of state law, they generally
7862191
Umm Batin


are not well-documented. Prior to the establishment of Israel, the Negev Bedouins were a semi-nomadic society that had been through a process of sedentariness since the Ottoman rule of the region. During the British Mandate period, no legal framework was established to justify and preserve land ownership. Thus Israel’s land policy was adopted to a large extent from the Ottoman land regulations of 1858 as the only legal precedent. Israel has continued the Ottoman policy of sedentarization of Negev Bedouins. In the 1950s Israel re-settled two
15996344
Abu Basma Regional Council


” Bedouins living in unrecognized villages outside the council’s jurisdiction. Prior to the establishment of Israel, the Negev Bedouins were a semi-nomadic pastoralist society that had been through a process of sedentariness since the Ottoman rule of the region. During the British Mandate period, the administration did not provide a legal frame to justify and preserve lands’ ownership. In order to settle this issue, Israel’s land policy was adapted to a large extent from the Ottoman land regulations of 1858 as the only preceding legal frame. Thus Israel
7991373
Anat Peleg


, to Dahlia Gottan, a leader in WIZO and Yaacqov Gottan. She is married to Israel Peleg and is the mother of two children. This book, based on a PhD dissertation, aims to map the reciprocal relations between legal professionals and the media in Israel, and to examine the impact of the changes that occurred in the media on the press coverage of the courts and on legal decision-making and the legal process itself. It discusses for the first time the question of whether a process of mediatization in the legal
19189180
Common law


by the British to prevent them being used as bases by the French Navy. The system was developed by the courts and spread with the expansion of British colonies in Southern Africa. Roman Dutch common law relies on legal principles set out in Roman law sources such as Justinian's Institutes and Digest, and also on the writing of Dutch jurists of the 17th century such as Grotius and Voet. In practice, the majority of decisions rely on recent precedent. Ghana follows the English common-law tradition which was inherited from the British
5058996
Abductive reasoning


used extensively. Similarly in medical diagnosis and legal reasoning, the same methods are being used, although there have been many examples of errors, especially caused by the base rate fallacy and the prosecutor's fallacy. Belief revision, the process of adapting beliefs in view of new information, is another field in which abduction has been applied. The main problem of belief revision is that the new information may be inconsistent with the prior web of beliefs, while the result of the incorporation cannot be inconsistent. The process of updating
14994959
Legal code (municipal)


legally defensible final document. General principles of law and philosophy prevailing in the region may also have an influence. Example legal codes that rely heavily on precedent and the opinions of prior jurists include English common law and U.S. Constitutional Law. By contrast most implementations of Islamic Shariah. Napoleonic Code, Chinese Law and German Law, emphasize very specific philosophical principles rooted in Islam, French, Chinese, and German philosophy respectively - the role of precedent and prior jurists is much reduced and that of current judges enhanced - thus these can be
11313976
City


-use controls such as zoning. The continuous process of comprehensive planning involves identifying general objectives as well as collecting data to evaluate progress and inform future decisions. Government is legally the final authority on planning but in practice the process involves both public and private elements. The legal principle of eminent domain is used by government to divest citizens of their property in cases where its use is required for a project. Planning often involves tradeoffs—decisions in which some stand to gain and some to lose—and thus is closely connected to
5116466
Civil law (legal system)


, an increasing degree of precedent is creeping into civil law jurisprudence, and is generally seen in many nations' highest courts. While the typical French-speaking supreme court decision is short, concise and devoid of explanation or justification, in Germanic Europe, the supreme courts can and do tend to write more verbose opinions, supported by legal reasoning. A line of similar case decisions, while not precedent "per se", constitute "jurisprudence constante". While civil law jurisdictions place little reliance on court decisions, they tend
21173838
Precedent


the majority of House members adopted the opinion that "R v Lambert" had been wrongly decided and agreed to depart from their earlier decision. A precedent does not bind a court if it finds there was a lack of care in the original "Per Incuriam". For example, if a statutory provision or precedent had not been brought to the previous court's attention before its decision, the precedent would not be binding. One of the most important roles of precedent is to resolve ambiguities in other legal texts, such as
3273689
Majority rule


directly from the presumption of innocence on which the US legal system is based. Rousseau advocated the use of supermajority voting on important decisions when he said, "The more the deliberations are important and serious, the more the opinion that carries should approach unanimity." McGann argues that majority rule helps to protect minority rights, at least in settings in which deliberation occurs. The argument is that cycling ensures that parties that lose to a majority have an interest to remain part of the group's process, because the decision can easily
7491683
Academic studies about Wikipedia


reported in "The Register". The paper concludes: Subsequent research by another group probed the sensemaking activities of individuals during their contributions to RfA decisions. This work establishes that decisions about RfA candidates is based on a shared interpretation of evidence in the wiki and histories of prior interactions. Automated semantic knowledge extraction using machine learning algorithms is used to "extract machine-processable information at a relatively low complexity cost". DBpedia uses structured content extracted from infoboxes by machine learning algorithms to create a resource of linked data in a Semantic
7389870
Privacy and the US government


in the Fourth Amendment. Prior to this court case the Fourth Amendment was often used to protect against the right of privacy to “material things”, however, this court decision overturned the prior precedent from the Olmstead v. United States decision. Established in the court case Katz v. United States, this test currently governs Fourth Amendment scope not outlined within legislation. Derived from Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, the Katz test has two parts: the first asks whether the person exhibited and understood the expectation of privacy, and the second
9436055
In re Bilski


or criteria should govern that determination when a claim is directed to a principle. The court concluded that prior decisions of the Supreme Court were of limited usefulness as guides because they represented polar cases on the abstraction and concreteness spectrum. Nonetheless, a legal test could be distilled from them: "A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." Not only
3924187
Precedent


are not obliged to do so and are required to consider the precedent in terms of principle. Their fellow judges' decisions may be persuasive but are not binding. Under the English legal system, judges are not necessarily entitled to make their own decisions about the development or interpretations of the law. They may be bound by a decision reached in a previous case. Two facts are crucial to determining whether a precedent is binding: In a conflict of laws situation, jus cogens erga omnes norms and principles of the common law such
3273642
Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act


private citizens clear guidelines for when and how geolocation information can be accessed and used." Advocates drafted the bill to address controversies surrounding prior incidents in which police had attached GPS devices to suspects' vehicles without warrants and to set a legal precedent for such tracking in the future. Current legislation surrounding the issue of tracking an individual's location has proven to be legally ambiguous and technically outdated. To date, primary precedent draws from the 1983 ruling of "United States v. Knotts" (1983) and the contentious Electronic Communications Privacy
5550420
New Covenant Ministries International


headquarters. Based on the lack of an official headquarters and the relational network of autonomous churches, they say that they are neither a denomination nor a movement. Since NCMI finds no biblical precedent for voting on decisions, NCMI team members do not vote but rather make decisions by arriving at a consensus. They discourage relating local churches from either voting among the eldership, or permitting the congregation to vote on any decision. NCMI does maintain a website, various legal entities in countries in which it operates, and a post office box
5616706
Remedies in Singapore constitutional law


been granted, it is likely that the Singapore courts will adopt the same legal principles that apply in administrative law. In the latter, the Court has held that it cannot use a mandatory order to direct how and in what manner a public body should perform its duty. Hence, the Court cannot direct the public body to adopt a particular decision but can only order the body to re-consider its prior decision without lapsing into the unlawfulness that affected it. This is based on the well-settled principle that
11458309
Knowledge-based decision making


Knowledge-based decision making (KBDM) in management is a decision-making process which process involves an agreed criterion, which is used to measure and ensure that the most suitable outcome can be generated for a specific topic. This process is used as a guideline to make the most effective and strategic decision as it establishes a thought process, reasoning behind a decision but also collects vital background essentials to together to increase understanding about a topic or agreed criteria. Open communication Dialogue Before deliberation All decision makers have common access to information
15972557
Law of Taiwan


the Statute Governing Judicial Personnel Administration, the qualifications of prosecutors are identical to that of judges. Both of them possess the status of judicial officials. Prosecutors shall be appointed from those persons who have passed the Examination of Judicial Officials, completed the Training Course for Judicial Officials and possessed distinguished records after a term of practice. Precedents have a very different legal effect from those in the United States or other Anglo-American legal systems, see Article 80 of the Constitution. Some Supreme Court decisions may go through a screening process and
4168957
Civil Code of the Philippines


itself is unable to provide a definite answer for all emerging problems; thus the courts also rely on precedent based on interpretations by the Supreme Court. This the Civil Code itself notably recognises in saying that "[j]udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines" ("Article 8, Civil Code"), a recognition of the eminent role now played by precedents in Philippine law. The Civil Code is divided into four “books”, with each specific
10548707
Copyright lawsuits by Superman's creators


of Superman. The court found that in the 1947 final consent judgment, Siegel and Shuster had transferred "all their rights" to the Superman character to National, including the renewal term. This decision was based on the legal precedent set by "Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons", in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an author could in writing convey his renewal rights in advance of their vesting. The court also ruled that Superman was a work made for hire, despite the fact that Siegel and
18569370
Computational law


legal decisions, and their relation to legislation. These efforts usually make use of citation analysis, which examines patterns in citations between works. Due to the widespread practice of legal citation, it is possible to construct citation indices and large graphs of legal precedent, called citation networks. Citation networks allow the use of graph traversal algorithms in order to relate cases to one another, as well as the use of various distance metrics to find mathematical relationships between them. These analyses can reveal important overarching patterns and trends in judicial proceedings and
3854041
Precedent fact errors in Singapore law


that the Court only reviews errors of law. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords has held that the nature of the decision-making process that the public authority is required to engage in determines whether a matter falls into the precedent fact category. If the process is complex and much discretion is accorded to the authority by the empowering statute, the court is unlikely to find that a precedent fact is involved. On the other hand, where an administrative decision interferes with an individual's liberty, the matter will be
2522346
Legal doctrine


A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case. A doctrine comes about when a judge makes a ruling where a process is outlined and applied, and allows for it to be equally applied to like cases. When enough judges make use of the process, soon enough it becomes established as the "de facto" method of deciding like situations. The following table lists examples of
20061439
Halakha


of Jewish law are determined through the Halakhic process, a religious-ethical system of legal reasoning. Rabbis generally base their opinions on the primary sources of "halakha" as well as on precedent set by previous rabbinic opinions. The major sources and genre of "halakha" consulted include: In antiquity, the "Sanhedrin" functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature (in the US judicial system) for Judaism, and had the power to administer binding law, including both received law and its own rabbinic decrees, on
13985209
Human rights in the United States


Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal" decision, which requires states to express compelling interest in prohibiting illegal drug use in religious practices. The United States is a constitutional republic based on founding documents that restrict the power of government and preserve the liberty of the people. The freedom of expression (including speech, media, and public assembly) is an important right and is given special protection, as declared by the First Amendment of the constitution. According to Supreme Court precedent, the federal and lower governments may not apply prior restraint to expression
21936235
Impulsivity


other, well-established psychological processes. Dual process theory states that mental processes operate in two separate classes: automatic and controlled. In general, automatic processes are those that are experiential in nature, occur without involving higher levels of cognition, and are based on prior experiences or informal heuristics. Controlled decisions are effortful and largely conscious processes in which an individual weighs alternatives and makes a more deliberate decision. Dual process theories at one time considered any single action/thought as either being automatic or controlled. However, currently they
14929167
Memorandum opinion


Under United States legal practice, a memorandum opinion is usually unpublished and cannot be cited as precedent. It is formally defined as: "[a] unanimous appellate opinion that succinctly states the decision of the court; an opinion that briefly reports the court's conclusion, usu. without elaboration because the decision follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law." Generally, memorandum opinions follow ordinary rules, including the application of precedent and the rule of "stare decisis". However
16800224
Precedent


decisions for matters of pure common (i.e. judge-made) law. Within the federal legal systems of several common-law countries, and most especially the United States, it is relatively common for the distinct lower-level judicial systems (e.g. state courts in the United States and Australia, provincial courts in Canada) to regard the decisions of other jurisdictions within the same country as persuasive precedent. Particularly in the United States, the adoption of a legal doctrine by a large number of other state judiciaries is regarded as highly
3273656
Precedent


the turn of the twentieth century, it was very rare to see an academic writer quoted in a legal decision (except perhaps for the academic writings of prominent judges such as Coke and Blackstone). Today academic writers are often cited in legal argument and decisions as persuasive authority; often, they are cited when judges are attempting to implement reasoning that other courts have not yet adopted, or when the judge believes the academic's restatement of the law is more compelling than can be found in precedent. Thus common law systems are
3273679
Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy)


the frame of reference of each individual case submitted, but do not constitute the base for judicial precedent for other future cases as in Common Law. It is worth noting that while in Civil Law jurisdictions the doctrine of stare decisis (precedent) does "not" apply, however, in practice the decisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation usually provide a very robust reference point in jurisprudence constante. The two essential aims of the Supreme Court of Cassation are to ensure that lower courts correctly follow legal procedure, and to harmonize the
9416833
Commonwealth v. Hunt


Commonwealth v. Hunt, 45 Mass. 111 (1842) was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions. Prior to "Hunt" the legality of labor combinations in America was uncertain. In March 1842, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals. The history of labor disputes in America substantially precedes the Revolutionary period. In 1636, for instance, there was a fishermen's strike on an
7659345
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez


nondiscrimination" policy. If the latter, the Society would not be able to reject members based on their legally protected "status" but could discriminate on the basis of conduct or belief. Alito likened the case to "Boy Scouts v. Dale", where the "message" of the group is burdened by forced inclusion of unwanted members. The court's decision, especially Ginsburg's discussion of "status" and "conduct", was promptly cited by plaintiffs in "Perry v. Schwarzenegger" as Supreme Court precedent that sexual
20947524
Parental alienation syndrome


to evaluate if it has been accepted by the scientific community. Despite Gardner claiming PAS was generally accepted by the scholarly community and passed the Frye test in two states, a 2006 analysis of court cases involving PAS and cited by Gardner concluded that these decisions did not set legal precedent, that PAS is viewed negatively in most legal scholarship, and that Gardner's writings do not support the existence of PAS. Of sixty-four precedent-bearing cases, only two decisions, both in New York State and both in criminal courts
18207156
Criminal justice


process, whatever the country, is fraught with problems and subject to criticism. Bias and discrimination form an ever-present threat to an objective decision. Any prejudice on the part of the lawyers, the judge, or jury members threatens to destroy the court's credibility. Some people argue that the often Byzantine rules governing courtroom conduct and processes restrict a layman's ability to participate, essentially reducing the legal process to a battle between the lawyers. In this case, the criticism is that the decision is based less on sound
5936268
Roe v. Wade


, and Breyer dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in "Roe v. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act possibly exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. In the case of "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", the most significant abortion
19212685
Recreation resource planning


to a systematic, reasoned and legally-sufficient recreation planning process and recreation plans. Recreation planning is a rational systematic decision-making process, and as such it is a fundamental tool that deters our human tendencies to make decisions based on predisposition, bias, inadequate analysis, group-think, insular perspective, resistance to change, and excessive self-confidence. It results in decisions that are more effective, efficient, fair, reasoned, and defensible. 1. Recreation Resource Planners: Recreation resource planners are professionals and should
1784358
CleanFlicks


stand and the legal precedent would be set. After discussions with their legal teams and investors, the decision was made to accept the offer. The companies were then given additional time to clear out their inventory but no more films could be edited during that time. All unsold inventory was then sent to the studios as defined by the ruling. CleanFlicks discontinued offering edited movies on August 31, 2006. In March 2007, CleanFlicks announced by email to former customers that they were relaunching their rental services based on a new business model
4819255
Colombian Constitution of 1991


ruling, also concerning the constitutionality of the 1957 plebiscite, in which it had declared that "when the people, exercising its sovereign and inalienable power, decides to pronounce itself on the constitutional text that will govern their destiny, it is not and cannot be subject to the legal regulations which precede its decision." The 1987 decision had also called the 'primary constituent act' "the expression of the highest political will", free from any judicial limitations. Summarizing its opinion, the majority wrote: Based on these
19211031
Alexander Suslin


of 1349 during the Black Death era massacres of hundreds of Jewish communities throughout Europe. Suslin authored the book "Aguddah" (אגודה "Collection"). In concise fashion it enumerates the most important legal decisions, based on Talmudic law, made by preceding rabbinical authorities. Its purpose is to render such decisions accessible for guidance in their practical application. A comparison of the "Aguddah" with Jacob ben Asher's "Arba'ah Turim", written at the same time in Spain, reveals the deficiencies of the German Jews of
9950544
Legal formalism


in terms of merely whether it is a good or bad thing, but rather in terms of how language both can and should be used to restrict the power of decision-makers in the decision-making process. In his essay "Formal and informal in legal logic", Jan Woleński contends that there are "rhetorical functions of metalogical concepts that are used in legal discourse", and hence the introduction of the informal into otherwise imperative logic. He reviews Jørgensen's paradox to introduce deontic logic, and acknowledges this innovation by
7325518
People v. Molineux


The decision was notable in its impact on the rules of admissibility of evidence. Over one hundred years later, Judge Rosenblatt of the New York Appeals Court stated that the Molineux decision was a "landmark case" which led to the precedent that: a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on the basis of a defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged. It is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the
12210894
Andrea Bowers


undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Like many of her works, "No Olvidado" served as a deliberately transient monument to the marginalized and forgotten. Bowers was alerted to a collection of letters from women seeking abortions prior to Roe v. Wade addressed to the Army of Three, a group of 3 activist women who advocated for the legalization of abortion in the United States in the decade preceding the Supreme Court decision. The Army of Three had assembled a list of doctors who would provide abortions for women in need. Bowers employed what she
10233049
Phoenician port of Beirut


Hands off our Phoenician Port"" over the walls. The destruction of archaeological site BEY194 took place two days prior to the publication of Minister Layoun's decision in the official Gazette, leading to claims that he acted in violation of Lebanese law and setting a concerning precedent for similar actions in future. The ministry maintains that the declassification of the site was done through the legal adopted procedures by the governmental institutions. The report by Pederson concluded that the trenches were and wide which is only big enough for small, single banked,
10287067