4 ms·
Legally, no. Practically, yes. I've been in situations where there was no precedent, and in asking what would happen if this went to court, decisions were mad
by frognumber 2y ago
Legally, no.
Practically, yes.
I've been in situations where there was no precedent, and in asking what would happen if this went to court, decisions were made based on how lower courts ruled. Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dctoedt 2y ago> Legal analyses, law review articles, customary practice, etc. all /influence/ courts. Correct. As a general rule: - When the "black-letter law" dictates a result (that is, a statute or binding precedent), a judge will generally follow it — unless the judge really wants to achieve a particular result and is willing to do mental-gymnastics rationalizing or to try to get the law changed. In other situations, judges are typically very busy but they still want to get it "right," in accordance with whatever their personal mental model of life suggests, and they don't like being reversed on appeal. So they (judges) look for support — and try to anticipate possible counterarguments — from a variety of sources, as suggested by the adversaries' counsel battling each other's arguments — each of whom is motivated to help the judge do what counsel want by finding the sorts of things mentioned above.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]