Stare decisis and information abundance in a common law jurisdiction
Emily Roscoe
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , United Stateshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7229-8817
Charles Szypszak
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , United Stateshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0059-9282
Abstract
In a common law jurisdiction, according to the principle of stare decisis judges are bound to interpret a constitutional or common law principle by applying authoritative cases already decided. Parties in disputes pending before the courts must find and assess the prior cases on which they can expect that judges will rely. Not very long ago, research for such precedent involved reviewing known cases and linking them to other cases using topical digests and citators. Success with this approach required a patient, persistent, thorough, and open-minded methodology. Modern information accessibility gives previously unimaginable quick access to cases, including with tools that promise to predict judicial tendencies. But this technological accessibility can have negative side effects, including a diminished research aptitude and a stilted capacity to synthesize information. It can also lead to an inadequate account of the human factors that often cause judges to depart from predictions based on logical inference from prior cases. This article considers the extent to which the identification of precedent is essential in legal analysis, yet is of limited value in predictability as a result of judges’ unavoidably human perspectives. With examples from landmark cases, the article illustrates that judges sometimes make decisions based on considerations that will not be revealed in a mechanistic application of precedent. The article considers how evolving legal research tools and methods give access to precedent that in some respects makes the process more scientific, but in other respects can obscure the realities of how cases are decided. The article also gives examples of this paradox as demonstrated by today’s students who are learning how to do research, drawn from years of the authors’ teaching experience.
Keywords:
Keywords: legal research, case law, stare decisis, common law, American lawReferences
Barrett, Amy Coney. “Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement.” Texas Law Review 91, no. 7 (2013): 1711–1737.
Brief of Lt. Gen. Julius W. Becton, Jr. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (August 2012), 36, accessed October 22, 2021. https://www.scotusblog.com/ wp-content/uploads/2016/08/11-345-respondent-amicus-becton.pdf.
Cameron, Charles M., and Jee-Kwang Park. “How Will They Vote? Predicting the Future Behavior of Supreme Court Nominees, 1937–2006.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6, no. 3 (2009): 485–512. (Crossref)
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making us Stupid?: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains.” The Atlantic, July/August 2008, 1–10.
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010.
Coles, Matthew Coles. “The Profound Political but Elusive Legal Legacy of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s LGBT Decisions.” Hastings Law Journal 70, no. 5 (2019): 1199–1207.
Criddle, Evan J., and Glen Staszewski. “Against Methodological Stare Decisis.” Georgetown Law Journal 102, no. 5 (2014): 1573–1596.
Dabney, Daniel. “The Universe of Thinkable Thoughts: Literary Warrant and West’s Key Number System.” Law Library Journal 99, no. 2 (2007): 229–247.
Dervin, Brenda. “An Overview of Sense-Making Research: Concepts, Methods and Results.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX, (1983).
Eliot, T. S., The Rock. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1934.
Garner, Bryan A. (ed.). Black’s Law Dictionary. 9th ed. St. Paul, MN: West, 2009.
Gluck, Abbe R., and Lisa Schultz Bressman. “Statutory Interpretation from the Inside-An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation and the Canons: Part 1.” Stanford Law Review 65, no. 5 (2013): 901–1026. Goulding, Anne. “Information Poverty or Overload?” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 33, no. 3 (2001): 109–111. (Crossref)
Greenleaf, Simon. A Collection of Case Overruled, Doubted, or Limited in their Application. Portland: Arthur Shirley, 1821.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr., The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown, 1881.
Johnson, John W. Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right to Privacy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2005.
Kozel, Randy J. “Stare Decisis in the Second-Best World.” California Law Review 103, no. 5 (2015): 1139–1194.
Lanier, Jaron. You Are Not a Gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.
Levi, Edward H. An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949. (Crossref)
Llewellyn, Karl N. Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals. Boston: Little, Brown, 1960.
Llewellyn, Karl N. The Bramble Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Manguel, Alberto. The Library at Night. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.
Nace, Andrew B. “Market Share Liability: A Current Assessment of a Decade-Old Doctrine.” Vanderbilt Law Review 44, no. 2 (1991): 395–439.
Ogden, Patti J. “Mastering the Lawless Science of Our Law: A Story of Legal Citation Indexes.” Law Library Journal 85, no. 1 (1993): 1–48.
Posner, Richard A. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. New York: Random House, 1980.
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. New York Times “Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Tolerance Is Seen in His Sacramento Roots.” New York Times. June 21, 2015. https:// www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/kennedys-gay-rights-rulings-seen-in-hissacramento- roots.html.
Traynor, Roger J. “Law and Social Change in a Democratic Society.” University of Illinois Law Forum 1956, no. 2 (1956): 230–241.
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
University of Virginia School of Law. “Retired Justice Kennedy Says His Gay Marriage Ruling ‘Surprised’ Him.” November 28, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Ja8JKVYsA.
White, G. Edward. The American Judicial Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
White, G. Edward. “The Anti-Judge: William O. Douglas and the Ambiguities of Individuality.” Virginia Law Review 74, no. 1 (1988): 17–86. (Crossref)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr., Instructor, School of Information and Library Science and School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; correspondence address: Campus Box 3330, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330, USA.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7229-8817University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor, School of Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; correspondence address: Campus Box 3330, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330, USA.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0059-9282
