Introduction to American Law

Case Structure, Precedent,&

Stare Decisis

Elements of a Case

● CAPTION● TYPE OF ACTION● STATEMENT OF FACTS● PROCEDURAL HISTORY● CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES● ISSUE(S)● HOLDING/RULE(S) OF THE CASE● RATIONALE● RESULT

Caption: Trial Court, Federal

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

ESTATE of Elvis PRESLEY, Plaintiff,v.

Rob RUSSEN, d/b/a The Big El Show, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 80-0951.513 F.Supp. 1339

April 16, 1981.

---------------------BROTMAN, District Judge.

Caption: Appeals Court, State

Supreme Court of California COMEDY III PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff and

Respondent,v.

GARY SADERUP, INC., et al., Defendants andAppellants.

No. S076061.April 30, 2001.

NOTICE

Some appellate decision will report both currentstatus, e.g. “Respondents,” as well as statusin trial court, e.g. “Plaintiff”

Type of Action

● Usually found at the very beginning of the opinion.

– Although some opinions might begin with the facts.● Purpose: explain what the general substantive

and/or procedural issues are in the case.– Procedural – the kind of relief the moving party is

requesting.– Substantive – the legal issues raised by the parties that

will determine who wins the case.

Type of Action: ExampleAs a general proposition, this case is concerned with the rights and limitations of one who promotes and presents a theatrical production designed to imitate or simulate a stage performance of Elvis Presley.

This action is currently before the court on a motion by plaintiff, the Estate of Elvis Presley, for a preliminary injunction. It seeks a preliminary injunction restraining defendant, Rob Russen, d/b/a THE BIG EL SHOW (hereafter Russen), or anyone acting or purporting to act in his or its behalf or in collaboration with it from using the name and service mark THE BIG EL SHOW and design, the image or likeness or persona of Elvis Presley or any equivalent, the names Elvis, Elvis Presley, Elvis in Concert, The King, and TCB or any equivalent or similar names on any goods, in any promotional materials, in any advertising or in connection with the offering or rendering of any musical services.

Type of Action: Example

A California statute grants the right of publicity to specified successors in interest of deceased celebrities, prohibiting any other person from using a celebrity's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without the consent of such successors. (Former Civ.Code, § 990.) FN1 The United States Constitution prohibits the states from abridging, among other fundamental rights, freedom of speech. (U.S. Const., 1st and 14th Amends.) In the case at bar we resolve a conflict between these two provisions.

Procedural History/IssuesThe parties waived the right to jury trial and the right to put on evidence, and submitted the case for decision on the following stipulated facts: (the court then sets forth the facts)

******** On these stipulated facts the court found for Comedy III and entered judgment against Saderup awarding damages of $75,000 and attorney’s fees of $150,000 plus costs. The court also issued a permanent injunction . . . .

********The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment . . . upholding the award of damages, attorney fees, and costs. In so doing, it rejected Saderup’s contentions that his conduct (1) did not violate the terms of the statute, and (2) in any event was protected by the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech.We granted review to address these two issues.

Holding

● Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason for the decision". – Also known as rule(s) or holding(s).

● Characteristics:– Rules necessary for final decision– Rule without which decision would be different– Rules grounded in specific facts– Theory used to make decision based on specific facts.

Why is this Important?

● Tells the reader how the court came to its decision.● More importantly, this is precedent that lower

courts should follow.

Holding v. Dicta

● Holding– Rule necessary for court to reach decision– Rule directly related to material facts

● Dicta– Latin for "remark," – a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is

not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle.

– Has no value as precedent.– Often hear “it is only dictum (dicta).”

A Simple Illustration

● The very foundation, in my opinion, of every rule which has been applied to insurance law is this, namely, that the contract of insurance contained in a marine or fire policy is a contract of indemnity, and of indemnity only, and that this contract means that the insured, in case of a loss against which the policy has been made, shall be fully indemnified, but shall never be more than fully indemnified.

– Castellain v. Preston (1883)

Techniques for Finding the Ratio

● Distinguish between material facts and those which appeared unimportant to the court.

● Discover the precedents applied. – What rules from prior cases did the court use?– These will provide an indication of the court's approach.

● Restrict your analysis to the opinions of the majority judges.

● Read subsequent decisions to find how the decision has been interpreted.

Rationale & Result

● Rationale: – Why did the court decide the way they did? What

reasons did they use.– This may include precedent (i.e. they ruled the way

they did because they had to).● Result:

– what was the disposition of the case– Affirmed, Reversed, Modified, Remanded

The Case Brief

● Facts● Procedural History● Issue● Rule● Rationale● Outcome

● Try to brief the Carbolic Smokeball Case. We will talk about it next session.

Intro to U.S. Law

Precedent and Stare Decisis

Precedent

● The legal principle or rule created by a court which guides judges in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

● Sometimes called Authority● To serve as precedent for a pending case, a prior

decision must have a similar question of law and factual situation.

Stare Decisis

● Latin for “to stand by things decided” (roughly)● the notion that prior court decisions must be

recognized as precedents● Civil Law Systems believe stare decisis

interferes:– with judge's ability to interpret the law– legislature's ability to make the law

Justifications for Precedent

● Equality● Judicial Efficiency● Predictability● Separation of Powers

U.S. Court System

Two Principles

● Vertical Stare Decisis – decision (precedent) made by higher court is binding on lower court.

● Horizontal Stare Decisis – court binds itself to prior decisions.– Example – if Supreme Court believed it could not

reverse prior Supreme Court decisions.– Example – In U.S., panel of judges in a particular

appellate “circuit” is bound by decision of panel within that circuit.

Using the Past in the Present

● Historically, various judicial systems have used past decisions to help decide present cases.

● But only Common Law requires judges to follow/use past decisions, even those with which they disagree.

Advantages

● Efficiency in administration of justice,● allows for accurate predictions of outcomes,● allows for equal treatment of people in like

situations = fundamental justice● Still some flexibility

Disadvantages

● Perpetuate unsound or unfair rules● Rule making via court decisions can be sporadic

and disorganized.– Legislature can hold hearings, order staff research,

and engage in debate.● Harder to find legal rule in court decision

– Legal rule in statute is clear.

Intro to Using Precedent

● Few disputes have exactly the same facts or legal issues.

● Job of attorney is to convince judge that past decision is similar factually and legal issues

● Underlying rationale of past decision may help to determine it's precedential value.

● This is not an exact science!

Avoiding Precedent

● Two ways to avoid precedent:– Overrule (few courts have this option)– Distinguish– Disapproving Precedent

● court can ignore precedent with hope that higher court will overrule (change) the precedent.

Overruling Precedent

● Related principles of law have developed making old rule hollow (useless).

● Facts have changed or are different so that old rule is no longer justified.

● Prior judicial ruling was clear error and enforcement is nearly impossible.

● Old rule is no longer workable.

Source: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Distinguishing

● identifying aspects of a previous decision that would make inappropriate the use of its ratio in the present case

● Facts are too different● Rationale is not the same

● Sometimes this means narrowing the ratio/holding of a case to its fact-based result, referred to as ‘limiting a case to its facts’.