Showing papers on "Judicial opinion published in 1976"
TL;DR: In this article, the use of precedents to create rules of legal obligation has, to the best of our knowledge, received little theoretical or empirical analysis; however, the authors present and test empirically an economic approach to legal precedent, derived mainly from the analysis of capital formation and investment.
Abstract: The use of precedents to create rules of legal obligation has, to our knowledge, received little theoretical or empirical analysis. This paper presents and tests empirically an economic approach to legal precedent that is derived mainly from the analysis of capital formation and investment. We treat the body of legal precedents created by judicial decisions in prior periods as a capital stock that yields a flow of information services which depreciates over time as new conditions arise that were not foreseen by the framers of the existing precedents. New (and replacement) capital is created by investment in the production of precedents.
229 citations
86 citations
86 citations
TL;DR: A comprehensive review of the court decisions relating to behavior modification procedures is presented, some of the complex and largely unresolved issues raised by the decisions are outlined, and some solutions to these problems are suggested from the viewpoint of a behavioral psychologist.
Abstract: This paper examines the intersection of behavior modification and recent court litigation dealing with prisoners and mentally handicapped persons. The courts have displayed an unprecedented interest in articulating the rights of institutionalized residents and establishing specific standards to insure that these rights are protected. While many of the court-ordered reforms are clearly beneficial, some of the emerging standards might, and indeed do, limit the use of certain behavior modification techniques, with the very real possibility that important therapeutic interventions could be delayed or even prohibited for some persons. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the court decisions relating to behavior modification procedures, outlines some of the complex and largely unresolved issues raised by the decisions, and suggests some solutions to these problems from the viewpoint of a behavioral psychologist.
44 citations
17 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the kinds of justification arguments used by opposing lawyers in two related court cases are examined, and the classification of these justifications reveals that lawyers tend to use a wide variety of...
Abstract: The kinds of justification arguments used by opposing lawyers in two related court cases are examined. The classification of these justifications reveals that lawyers tend to use a wide variety of ...
14 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the use of precedents to create rules of legal obligation has, to the best of our knowledge, received little theoretical or empirical analysis; however, the authors present and test empirically an economic approach to legal precedent, derived mainly from the analysis of capital formation and investment.
Abstract: The use of precedents to create rules of legal obligation has, to our knowledge, received little theoretical or empirical analysis. This paper presents and tests empirically an economic approach to legal precedent that is derived mainly from the analysis of capital formation and investment. We treat the body of legal precedents created by judicial decisions in prior periods as a capital stock that yields a flow of information services which depreciates over time as new conditions arise that were not foreseen by the framers of the existing precedents. New (and replacement) capital is created by investment in the production of precedents.
13 citations
11 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, the use of precedents to create rules of legal obligation has, to the best of our knowledge, received little theoretical or empirical analysis; however, the authors present and test empirically an economic approach to legal precedent, derived mainly from the analysis of capital formation and investment.
Abstract: The use of precedents to create rules of legal obligation has, to our knowledge, received little theoretical or empirical analysis. This paper presents and tests empirically an economic approach to legal precedent that is derived mainly from the analysis of capital formation and investment. We treat the body of legal precedents created by judicial decisions in prior periods as a capital stock that yields a flow of information services which depreciates over time as new conditions arise that were not foreseen by the framers of the existing precedents. New (and replacement) capital is created by investment in the production of precedents.
10 citations
9 citations
01 Dec 1976
Book•
01 Jan 1976
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluate the aims and methodology of comparative legal research, as it seems a promising source of empirical information on law and law-related subjects and could, in turn, profit from social science methodology and insights.
Abstract: The sheer volume of contemporary comparative legal literature prompts reflection on its contribution to the better understanding of legal institutions.' In addition, the increasing attempts at meaningful collaboration between legal and social science researchers calls for an evaluation of the aims and methodology of comparative legal research, as it seems a promising source of empirical information on law and law-related subjects and could, in turn, profit from social science methodology and insights. Professor Dainow's collection of essays,la the product of a careful selection of comparative or comparatively-oriented writings in a crucial area of municipal law, provides a good starting point for such an evaluation.
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors chart the constitutional boundaries of Congress' privilege to withhold its internal papers from judicial subpoena and reveal that while the Constitution does give Congress the privilege of refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents in limited circumstances, it does not supply the absolute, unreviewable power that, in the view of some observers, Congress has arrogated to itself.
Abstract: Some contemporary Congresses have lost sight of the original scope of their predecessors' assertions of privilege and now claim an absolute privilege to withhold both the originals and copies of subpoenaed papers. A few judicial opinions suggest as much or more. It is possible that even cursorily documented, ill-considered dicta can take root and flourish, and to prevent that, this article This article charts the constitutional boundaries of Congress' privilege to withhold its internal papers from judicial subpoena. It surveys the privileges expressly given Congress in the text of the Constitution as well as the privileges that might be implied from our constitutional structure and history. This examination reveals that while the Constitution does give Congress the privilege of refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents in limited circumstances, it does not supply the absolute, unreviewable power that, in the view of some observers, Congress has arrogated to itself.
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors chart the constitutional boundaries of Congress' privilege to withhold its internal papers from judicial subpoena and reveal that while the Constitution does give Congress the privilege of refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents in limited circumstances, it does not supply the absolute, unreviewable power that, in the view of some observers, Congress has arrogated to itself.
Abstract: Some contemporary Congresses have lost sight of the original scope of their predecessors' assertions of privilege and now claim an absolute privilege to withhold both the originals and copies of subpoenaed papers. A few judicial opinions suggest as much or more. It is possible that even cursorily documented, ill-considered dicta can take root and flourish, and to prevent that, this article This article charts the constitutional boundaries of Congress' privilege to withhold its internal papers from judicial subpoena. It surveys the privileges expressly given Congress in the text of the Constitution as well as the privileges that might be implied from our constitutional structure and history. This examination reveals that while the Constitution does give Congress the privilege of refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents in limited circumstances, it does not supply the absolute, unreviewable power that, in the view of some observers, Congress has arrogated to itself.