Judicial opinion

About: Judicial opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5300 publications have been published within this topic receiving 64803 citations.

Legal Translation Explained

Abstract: Foreword Acknowledgements 1. Some Pointers to the Linguistics of Legal English 1.1. Introduction: Legal English and the rise of English for professional purposes 1.2. The aims of the book 1.3. The leading features of legal English 1.4. 'Legalese' and 'The Plain English Campaign' 1.5. The classification of legal vocabulary 1.6. Some leading features of the morphology and syntax of legal English 2. Equivalence and Interpretation 2.1. The question of equivalence in translation studies 2.2. Judges and translators. Interpretation and construction. The elusiveness of meaning 2.3. Vagueness in legal lexical units (I). Definition. Extension and intension 2.4. Vagueness in legal lexical units (II). Denotation and connotation. Register 2.5. Vagueness in legal lexical units (III). Polysemy. The important of context 2.6. Vagueness in legal lexical units (IV). Homonymy 2.7. Vagueness in legal lexical units (V). Synonyms, hyperonyms and hyponyms 2.8. Vagueness in legal lexical units (VI). Antonyms 2.9. Vagueness in legal lexical units (VII). False cognates or 'false friends' 2.10. Figurative language: metaphors and buried metaphors 2.11. Syntactic ambiguity 3. Some Pointers to the English Legal System 3.1. Introduction. The translator and the legal background 3.2. The translator and the sources of English law (a) Common Law (b) Equity (c) Statute law 3.3. The branches of English law. Jurisdiction and the court structure 3.4. The English Criminal Courts 3.5. The vocabulary of litigation 3.6. Common terms in litigation 3.7. The language of judges 3.8. The terms used in favourable judicial decisions 3.9. The terms used in unfavourable judicial decisions 4. Civil and Criminal Proceedings. Administrative Tribunals 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Civil proceedings 4.2.1 The new 'Civil procedure rules 1998' 4.2.2 The overriding objective 4.2.3 Unification of procedure 4.2.4 Allocation to track 4.3. Right of action: Some basic terms 4.4. Criminal proceedings 4.4.1 Arrest and charge 4.4.2 Types of offences 4.4.3 The trial 5. Administrative, Industrial and Domestic Tribunals 5. 1. Genres in the translation of legal English (I) 5.1.1. Introduction. Legal genres in translation 5.1.2. The macrostructure of legal genres. University degrees and diplomas 5.1.3. Certificates 5.1.4. Statutes 5.1.5. Law reports 5.1.6. Judgements 5.1.7. Oral genres (I). The examination of witnesses at the public hearing 5.1.8. Oral genres (II). Counsels' closing speeches to the jury, [jury summation]. Judge's summing-up and charge to the jury 6. Genres in the translation of legal English (II) 6.1. Contracts 6.2. Deeds and indentures 6.3. Insurance policies 6.4. Last will and testament 6.5. The power of attorney 6.6. The professional article 6.7. Legal English in popular fiction 7. Practical Problems in Translation Explained (I) 7.1. Translation as problem-solving 7.2. Legal vocabulary (I). The translation of purely technical vocabulary 7.2.1. Problems in the translation of one-word purely technical terms 7.2.2. Problems in the translation of multi-word purely technical terms 7.3. Legal vocabulary (II). The translation of semi-technical vocabulary 7.4. The translation of everyday vocabulary in legal English 7.5. The translation of functional vocabulary in legal English 7.6. Lexical resources in translation (l). The collocations of legal English 7.7. Lexical resources in translation (ll). The semantic fields of legal English 7.8. Lexical traps for the translator: false cognates and unconscious calques 8. Practical Problems in Translation Explained (II) 8.1. The translator at the crossroads: techniques of legal translation 8.2. Transposition 8.3. Expansion 8.4. Modulation 8.5. Modifiers 8.6. The syntax of legal English. Double conjunctions 8.7. Thematization. Syntactic peculiarities of individual languages 8.8. Textual coherence. Lexical repetition in English legal discourse. Synonyms References Index

Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions

Abstract: Despite the interdisciplinary bent of legal scholars, the academy has yet to identify an empirical methodology that is uniquely its own. We propose that one standard social science technique - content analysis - could form the basis for an empirical methodology that is uniquely legal. It holds the potential for bringing social science rigor to our empirical understanding of caselaw, and therefore for creating what is distinctively a legal form of empiricism. To explore this potential, we collected all 122 examples we could find that use content analysis to study judicial opinions, and coded them for pertinent features. Legal scholars began to code and count cases decades ago, but use of this method did not accelerate until about 15 years ago. Most applications are home-grown, with no effort to draw on established social science techniques. To provide methodological guidance, we survey the questions that legal scholars have tried to answer through content analysis, and use that experience to generalize about the strengths and weaknesses of the technique compared with conventional interpretive legal methods. The epistemological roots of content analysis lie in legal realism. Any question that a lawyer might ask about what courts say or do can be studied more objectively using one of the four distinct components of content analysis: 1) replicable selection of cases; 2) objective coding of cases; 3) counting case contents for descriptive purposes; or 4) statistical analysis of case coding. Each of these components contributes something of unique epistemological value to legal research, yet at each of these four stages, some legal scholars have objected to the technique. The most effective response is to recognize that content analysis does not occupy the same epistemological ground as conventional legal scholarship. Instead, each method renders different kinds of insights that complement each other, so that, together, the two approaches to understanding caselaw are more powerful that either alone. Content analysis is best used when each decision should receive equal weight, that is, when it is appropriate to regard the content of opinions as generic data. Scholars have found that it is especially useful in studies that question or debunk conventional legal wisdom. Content analysis also holds promise in the study of the connections between judicial opinions and other parts of the social, political, or economic landscape. The strongest application is when the subject of study is simply the behavior of judges in writing opinions or deciding cases. Then, content analysis combines the analytical skills of the lawyer with the power of science that comes from articulated and replicable methods. However, analyzing the cause-and-effect relationship between the outcome of cases and the legally relevant factors presented by judges to justify their decisions raises a serious circularity problem. Therefore, content analysis is not an especially good tool for helping lawyers to predict the outcome of cases based on real-world facts. This article also provides guidance on the best practices for using this research method. We identify techniques that meet standards of social science rigor and account for the practical needs of legal researchers. These techniques include methods for case sampling, coder training, reliability testing, and statistical analysis. It is not necessary to practice this method profitably only at its highest level. Instead, we show that valuable uses can be made even by those who are largely innumerate.

Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making

Abstract: Author Biography Dedication Acknowledgements I. Introduction II. Interest Group Litigation III. Amicus Curiae Participation in the Supreme Court IV. Amici Curiae and Judicial Decision Making V. Amici Curiae and the Consistency of Judicial Decision Making VI. Amici Curiae and Dissensus on the Supreme Court VII. Conclusions and Implications Appendix: Data and Data Reliability References Table of Cases Index

How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: Although scholars increasingly acknowledge a contemporaneous relationship between public opinion and Supreme Court decisions, debate continues as to why this relationship exists. Does public opinion directly influence decisions or do justices simply respond to the same social forces that simultaneously shape the public mood? To answer this question, we first develop a strategy to control for the justices' attitudinal change that stems from the social forces that influence public opinion. We then propose a theoretical argument that predicts strategic justices should be mindful of public opinion even in cases when the public is unlikely to be aware of the Court's activities. The results suggest that the influence of public opinion on Supreme Court decisions is real, substantively important, and most pronounced in nonsalient cases.