Judicial opinion

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

Appellate Court Adherence to Precedent

Abstract: Why do lower courts follow precedent, or any law? Traditional rational choice theories that rely on presumptions of ideological decision making have struggled to explain the power of judicial hierarchy. This article addresses the issue in three components. The first two sections examine the conventional positive political theory explanations for circuit court adherence to Supreme Court preferences based on a risk of reversal by the Court. These sections explain how these conventional theories cannot be theoretically sustained under prevailing resource constraints. The next two sections set forth an alternative explanation that considers the possibility of judges who possess both political and legal preferences. Using linguistic theory, these sections explain how the two types of preference could interact to produce partial adherence to precedent. The final section empirically examines circuit court decision making. This analysis shows that both political and traditional legal considerations have a significant effect on circuit court decision making, while contemporaneous Supreme Court preferences exert no discernible influence. The theoretical and empirical evidence support a conclusion that lower courts adhere to the law out of an affirmative judicial preference for such adherence rather than out of a fear of reversal by a higher court.

The Supreme Court Decision

Abstract: The Supreme Court of Ohio FILED: JUN 14 2000 Home Builders Association. of Dayton Case and the Miami Valley et al., Appellees, v. City of Beavercreek, Appellant. COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT ENTRY No. 98-2572 This cause, here on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Greene County, was considered in, the manner prescribed by law. On consideration thereof, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated, consistent with the opinion rendered herein. It is further ordered that the appellant recover from the appellees its costs herein expended; and that a mandate be sent to the Court of Common Pleas for Greene County to carry this judgment into execution; and that a copy of this entry be certified to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for Greene County for entry. COSTS: Docket Fee, $40.00, paid by Calfee, Halter Griswold L.L.P. Greene County Court of Appeals• No• 97CA113 and 97CA115) THOMAS J. MOYER Chief Justice 00 Ohio St.3d HOME BUILDERS ASSN. w. BEAVERCREEK Statement of the Case HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF DAYTON AND THE MIAMI VALLEY ET APPELLEES, v. CITY OF BEAVERCREEK APPELLANT. [Cite as Home Builders Assn, of Dayton & the Miami Valley v Beavercreek (2000), • Ohio St.3d .] Municipal corporations••Streets highway-Impact fee adopted by ordinance that partially funds new roadway projects is constitutional when.

Where Is the Sin in Sincere? Sophisticated Manipulation of Sincere Judicial Voters (With Applications to Other Voting Environments

Abstract: We present one of the first small-group voting models that allows sophisticated and sincere voters to interact. We investigate sophistication in a particular sequential setting, where an initial decision of one group may be revised subsequently by another voting group. Although the discussion is phrased in terms of judges, courts, and Congress, the model applies to a wider array of situations. We use this framework to investigate the likelihood that courts include sophisticated and sincere judicial voters sitting together. The main conclusion of our investigation is that if sincere voting in the courts were the norm, then we should observe a patter of behavior that is inconsistent with the available evidence: first, subsequent congressional reversals of judicial decisions should be common; second, judicial opinions would tend to be the outcome of liberal/conservative coalitions. Since neither outcome is the prevalent norm of judicial decision-making, we suggest tiat scholars of the judicial system may assume, at least for the time being, that sophisticated behavior among justices is the norm rather than the exception.

Public Employment in Georgia State Agencies: The Elimination of the Merit System

Abstract: Georgia’s 1996 elimination of merit protections for newly hired employees challenges the legal protections that act as a barrier to unfettered government action. This article reviews the implications of Georgia’s reforms in light of constitutional protections and judicial precedent. Although this reform effort sought to avoid employees’ procedural due process rights by eliminating merit status for newly hired employees, federal and state judicial decisions indicate that those rights may not be so easy to extinguish. The most pressing challenge involves the constitutional right to due process. The Supreme Court has determined that public employment may rise to the level of a property right, requiring procedural due process. The courts have used a variety of standards to confer a property right interest, including the existence of language in policy and procedure manuals. Accordingly, many of Georgia’s agencies may have unknowingly promulgated employee regulations that lead to the expectation of a property ...