DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction to Common

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction to Common Common law reasoning and the use of precedent Welcome program The University of Sydney Page 1 Seminar outline Welcome Introduction to the Australian legal system – Common law system – Adversarial Focus on: – The courts – Judge-made law – Case law what it is, how it is used The University of Sydney Page 2 Welcome Dr Chris Rudge [email protected] RM: 532 The University of Sydney Page 3 Introduction to the Australian Legal System – What is law? – How are we to recognise a rule as a law? – What distinguishes a law from other kinds of rules in a society? – Is the law necessary? Why/why not? – History of law in Australia – Reception of English law (colonial legal system) – Aboriginal systems of law The University of Sydney Page 4 Sources of law in Australia – Australian Constitution – Sets out the powers of the States and the Federal Parliament – (note, each of the States also has its own Constitution) – Legislation and legislative instruments – Similar to ‘a code’ – written laws – Acts of Parliament – “Common law” (the focus of this lecture) - judge-made or case law – Note: Cases are usually reported as parties’ names, eg. Dietrich v R (1992) 177 CLR 292 or Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 – International law: as an interpretive aid – Indigenous law / customary law: in specific contexts The University of Sydney Page 5 Case law In this system - – There is a preference for primary sources (e.g. legislation, judgments, full text, authorised reports) – Secondary sources have a supplementary role (e.g. texts, monographs, articles, annotations, summaries, digests) The University of Sydney Page 6 The genesis of a case In legal writing, we see statements like this: A duty of care can be owed by the manufacturer of an item to the ultimate consumer, notwithstanding the absence of a contractual relationship between them (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562). The University of Sydney Page 7 The genesis of a case – How did this case come to be? – Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer at a café. – The bottle was opaque, so it was only when Mrs Donoghue had drunk most of the liquid that she realised there was a decomposed snail at the bottom. – This made her unwell. – She sued Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer, for her loss arising from her suffering. The University of Sydney Page 8 The genesis of a case – The “case” is the judge’s ultimate decision (the judgment) – Before we end up with a case to read: – An incident occurs (Mrs Donoghue drinks a snail) – Someone involved recognises it as an incident with legal consequences (Mrs Donoghue decides to consult a lawyer) – There is someone to blame (here, the manufacturer, Mr Stevenson) – Famously, this has been labelled ‘naming, blaming and claiming’ (Felstiner, Abel and Sarat, 1980) The University of Sydney Page 9 The genesis of a case – The person seeks legal advice (usually) (hence, we must learn our ‘substantive’ law subjects like tort, contract, real property, and so on) – Negotiation might take place between Mrs Donoghue and Mr Stevenson – Most disputes will end here. The University of Sydney Page 10 The genesis of a case – Some will continue to court proceedings (hence, we must learn about civil and criminal procedure and evidence) – The Australian legal system has both solicitors and barristers – Solicitors: may work alone, or with others in firms; may do transactional as well as litigation work – Barristers: work alone, do ‘appearance’ work (appearing before the court) – Finally, the trial takes place and is ‘heard’ by the judge The University of Sydney Page 11 An adversarial system – The judge can only make a decision based on the evidence that is (properly) before the court – The judge does not gather evidence or information – The judge makes a determination about the facts and about the law – In jury trials (only in criminal matters) the jury determines the facts and hence the law – Note in jury trials, there is no ‘judgment’ – we cannot know how the jury arrived at their decision – Only have judgments in criminal appeals and in sentencing The University of Sydney Page 12 The genesis of a case – The judge gives his or her decision … – It may be ex tempore (spoken) or reserved and written later, but ultimately – – … it is published in written form. – Not all decisions are published – only those of higher courts The University of Sydney Page 13 Exercise: case analysis – Refer to workshop materials The University of Sydney Page 14 How does the judge make their decision? – Two main sources of law: – Statute law – Case law – The judge may be interpreting the meaning of a statute or reading the decisions of other courts (likely both) – If a “higher” court has made a decision on the same issue, the judge must “follow” that decision – This is the doctrine of precedent – Stare decisis et non quieta movere – “stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm” The University of Sydney Page 15 The history of the common law – The common law began to develop from the 12th to 14th centuries as centralised courts were established – The ‘common law’ (in this context) refers to all the decisions that have gone before – There must be certainty in matters of law – It would be unjust if like cases were not treated alike – To apply this, must understand court hierarchies – Jurist William Blackstone, 1723-1780 The University of Sydney Page 16 Hierarchy of courts in Australia High Court of Aus State/Territory Commonwealth Courts Courts Supreme Court Federal Court Family Court Intermediate Courts (County/District) Federal Circle Court Lower Courts (Local/Magistrates) For more detail and far better graphics, see textbook. The University of Sydney Page 17 Appeals – Cannot usually appeal on an issue of fact (though can argue the judge’s conclusions were unsupported by the evidence) but only on issues of law – The higher courts only determine issues of law – Therefore may win your appeal but the outcome is the higher court sends your case back to the lower court to be heard again (a rehearing) – Appeal may be “as of right”, or only with “leave” of the appeal court The University of Sydney Page 18 Discussion – Do you think precedent is a good method for judicial decision making? Why/why not? The University of Sydney Page 19 Why follow precedent? – Certainty: arrange affairs with confidence – Equality: like cases are treated alike – Efficiency: no need to keep (re)litigating – Appearance of justice: impartial rules of law, impersonal and reasoned judgments (See Telstra Corp v Treloar (2000) 102 FCR 595 where this was discussed) The University of Sydney Page 20 How to use precedent? Understand the court hierarchies – E.g. in State matters: – 1) High Court of Australia – Gold. No one can touch this. – 2) Court of Appeal – Good, especially if appeal to the High Court has been denied. But remember, not binding on Courts of Appeal in other States. – 3) State Supreme Court – Okay. But not binding on other Supreme Court judges. – 4) District Court – Not much use. – 5) Local Court – Who cares? * A decision of a court in a different hierarchy (i.e. NSW and Victoria) may be persuasive but will not be binding The University of Sydney Page 21 How to use precedent? – How to apply it? – Only the ratio decidendi (the reason for the decision) is binding • “any rule of law expressly or impliedly treated by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion having regard to the line of reasoning adopted by him, or a necessary part of his direction to the jury” (Cross, Precedent in English Law, 1977) – Obiter dicta (comments made in passing) are not binding – Must work out the essential reasoning of the decision – this is what is binding – Can be hard when there are several judges and they all give different reasons (separate judgments) – There are likely to be multiple judges in appeal hearings – (E.g. the Court of Appeal usually sits with 3 judges – sometimes 5, if it is an important issue; the High Court usually sits with 5 or 7) The University of Sydney Page 22 Multiple judges – We can still use case law even when there are multiple judgments saying slightly different things – Refer to “majority” and “minority” (dissenting) reasoning – E.g. Consider the High Court’s decision in U v U (2002) 211 CLR 238 – Gummow & Callinan JJ wrote the leading judgment – Hayne J concurred with Gummow & Callinan JJ and added some comments of his own – Gleeson CJ and McHugh J each concurred with Gummow & Callinan JJ (and also with the comments of Hayne J) – Gaudron J dissented – Kirby J also dissented in a separate judgment – The dissenters’ reasoning is obiter – Compare this to the High Court’s decision in RCB as Litigation Guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v Hon Justice Colin James Forrest (2012) 247 CLR 304 – a single, unanimous decision of 5 judges The University of Sydney Page 23 The doctrine of precedent Determining the ratio decidendi – Ask: – What was the reason for the judges’ decision? (Said another way: why did the judge decide the case in that way?) The University of Sydney Page 24 The doctrine of precedent Judicial decision making – How does a court decide what is the legally binding rule? – Statute – Precedent – Persuasive authorities – Can the law always be found? (the ‘declaratory’ theory of law) The University of Sydney Page 25 The doctrine of precedent Avoiding precedent What if a court doesn’t want to follow a previous decision? – Distinguishing on the facts – Previous statement of law too wide – Previous decision obiter, not ratio – Change in social circumstances or context – Previous decision is unsatisfactory – Previous decision per incuriam (wrongly decided) - only its own previous decisions See Laying Down the Law The University of Sydney Page 26 Exercise: shaping the law Activity: – It is January 2015 and Tracy is celebrating her birthday.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc
    The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. Determining the Ratio Decidendi of a Case Author(s): Arthur L. Goodhart Source: The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Dec., 1930), pp. 161-183 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/790205 . Accessed: 22/02/2011 14:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ylj. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Yale Law Journal. http://www.jstor.org YALE LAw JOURNAL VOL XL.
    [Show full text]
  • A Doctrine of Precedent in the Making: the Case of the Argentine Supreme Court’S Case Law
    A DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT IN THE MAKING: THE CASE OF THE ARGENTINE SUPREME COURT’S CASE LAW Alberto F. Garay* INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 259 I. A BRIEF HISTORIC ACCOUNT OF ARGENTINA ............................... 260 1. The Colonial Times ............................................................ 260 2. The Argentine Constitutional Framework ......................... 261 3. The United States Influence on the Argentine Constitution of 1853-1860 ....................................................................... 262 4. European and Latin American Influences on the Argentine Constitutional Text.......................................................... 266 5. Further Constitutional and Political Developments .......... 268 II. ARGENTINE CIVIL LAW TRADITION ............................................. 268 III. THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE FOUNDATION OF A DIFFERENT TRADITION ............................................................................. 273 1. Introduction ........................................................................ 273 2. The Supreme Court Recording and Reporting of Cases .... 274 3. Origins of a New Style of Adjudicating Cases ................... 275 4. The Previous Legal Background and its Critics ................ 276 5. The Bar Demanded Treating Like Cases Alike .................. 283 IV. HOW THE ARGENTINE SUPREME COURT DEALS WITH ITS OWN PRECEDENT ............................................................................ 284 * J.D.,
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of the Judicial Decision
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 33 Issue 2 Article 4 1983 The Concept of the Judicial Decision Joel Levin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joel Levin, The Concept of the Judicial Decision, 33 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 208 (1983) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol33/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Concept of the Judicial Decision Joel Levin* The judicial decision serves a primary role in the Anglo-American legal system. The judicial decision performs numerousfunctions including that of precedentfor future cases. This Article examines three related aspects of the judicialdecisiort First,the author discusses the use ofreasons injudicial decisions and concludes that interpretationof a judicialdecision requiresone to develop an understandingof one's judicial view. Second, this Article analyzes the role oflegalforms. Finally, reason- ing by analogy is examined The author maintains that the latter is not dferent from reasoning by induction and that true nondeductive reasoning should be called argument by metaphor. INTRODUCTION THE CENTRAL CONCEPT in the common law is the judicial decision. Analyzing past decisions and framing arguments for future decisions together serve as the focus for legal argument. Given the importance of judicial decisions, it is hardly surprising that there is controversy over the proper technique for under- standing adjudication.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta Law Review
    THE REVOLUTION IN THE CIVIL LAW 29 THE REVOLUTION IN THE CIVIL LAW MELVIN BELLI• This article analyses the causes of the change in attitude by the American courts towaTClscivil disputes. Mr. Belli depicts this change by a vaTiety of controversial illustrations and concludes that the essential ingredient in this development was the Tecognition of individual's rights. We have come a long way from MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company. The great expansion of a manufacturer's liability for negligence since that case marks the transition from industrial revolution to a iettled industrial society. The courts of the nineteenth century made allowance for the growing pains of industry by restricting its duty of care to the consumer. They restricted the duty so much that in 1842 a court could say about the injured plaintiff in Winterbottom v. Wright that 'it is, no doubt, a hardship upon the plaintiff to be without a remedy, but by that consideration we ought not to be influenced.' With a touT de force of supreme simplicity the court demonstrated that it was not under the influence. It ignored strict liability, made short shrift of the issue of the manufacturer's negligence, carried the injured plaintiff to the doorstep of privily of contract, and left him on the doorstep. However clearly the manufacturer could foresee in­ juries to others, the court confined his duty of reasonable care to those in privity, and confined privity to those with whom he dealt directly. It feared that other­ wise there would be 'the most absurd and outrageous consequences.' In effect it feared a plaintiff-population explosion, and could not envisage how a manu­ facturer could be expected to exercise reasonable care toward just anybody he could foresee might suffer injury from his defective product.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges and Law-Making Authority: the New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code and the Limits of How a Civil Law Judge Could Act Such As a Common Law Judge
    Athens Journal of Law - Volume 6, Issue 2, April 2020 – Pages 191-208 Judges and Law-making Authority: The New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code and the Limits of How a Civil Law Judge Could Act Such as a Common Law Judge By Rafael de Oliveira Rodrigues* This paper intends to compare two different legal systems, by the perspective of the role of judges and how this officer of the court applies and interprets the law. The author focusses on how and when judges are allowed to create law within their judicial decisions. In this sense, he analyses how application and interpretation of the law fit within the legal concept of discretion and, in case of adopting the possibility in which the judicial authority carries out this prerogative and he taken into account how different judicial discretion comes from legislative and administrative discretion. By taking law application and interpretation as an exercise of judicial discretion is a key element to allow us to identify the way the judges create the law in civil law and common law systems. This reasoning will lead us to find elements to understand the purpose and length of a trend seen in countries in Latin America such as Brazil with its new Civil Procedure Code, which focusses on importing means from common law system to increase the efficiency of Judiciary Power, in order to attend social needs. Keywords: Jurisdiction; law making power; civil law; common law. Introduction Jurisdiction and its Connection to the Law Before studying the jurisdiction and its role in and for the state, it is elementary to reach a complete understanding of the subject, focused on the law and its function in society.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Ratio in Precedent
    Identification of Ratio In Precedent 1 JUSTICE VED PRAKASH CHAIRMAN MADHYA PRADESH LAW COMMISSION The Doctrine of Binding Precedent- Source 2 Statutes can never cover every legal aspect involved in a case , therefore, out of necessity courts have to fill the gaps in law, which in course of time becomes a precedent. The Common law doctrine of binding Precedent is based upon the Latin maxim ‘Stare decisis et non quieta movere’, commonly referred to as ‘stare decisis’, meaning to “to stand by decided matters and not to disturb settled points.” India and Bangladesh both having inherited the Common Law system , the doctrine of binding precedent is well applicable to both the countries. Stare Decisis-The Utility 3 “Promotes the even-handed, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” (Supreme Court Of U.S. ) Precedent and Ratio Decidendi 4 “A precedent is a judicial decision, which contains in itself a principle. The only principle which forms its authoritative element is often termed the `ratio decidendi'. The concrete decision is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi which alone has the force of law as regards the world at large".(Salmond ) Precedent 5 “ ....Judicial declaration, unaccompanied by judicial application, is not of binding authority." They (Judges) must not lay down principles which are not required for the due decision of the particular case, or which are wider than is necessary for this purpose. The only judicial principles which are authoritive are those which are thus relevant in their subject-matter and limited in their scope...” [Salmond on Jurisprudence (11th Edition, page 224] Ratio Decidendi- Meaning 6 ‘Ratio decidendi’-a Latin expression means ‘the reason for deciding.’ "The only thing in a Judge's decision binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided." Sir George Jessel in Osborne v.
    [Show full text]
  • Donoghue V Stevenson – What the Law Textbooks Didn’T Tell You!
    Donoghue v Stevenson – what the law textbooks didn’t tell you! Jeff Heasman CELTA, LL.B (Hons), LL.M Learning Outcomes Develop and use critical thinking skills to evaluate previously decided case law. Understand the historical context of the development of the law of negligence. Appreciate more fully the background to the seminal case of Donoghue v Stevenson. Approach the facts of the case as a modern-day insurer would to decide whether the same outcome would be likely today! The Cast The Snail – the cast member about which we know the least. May Donoghue - born on 4 July 1898 and died from a heart attack on 19 March 1958. Mrs Donoghue had quite a tragic life (aside from the snail). A ‘friend’ – more later! Francis Minghella – the proprietor of the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley. David Stevenson – a manufacturer of lemonade and ginger beer at 11 Glen Lane in Paisley. Lord Atkin – delivered the leading judgment. Walter Leechman – the tenacious solicitor of WG Leechman & Co. 1 A Modern-Day Insurer’s View A letter of claim lands on your desk alleging the following: The claimant has suffered from severe shock, nausea, sickness and gastroenteritis and claims £25,000. This was the result of drinking some ginger beer from a bottle containing a decomposed snail. It is specifically alleged the snail entered the bottle before it was filled and sealed at the insured’s premises. It is specifically alleged that bottles at the insured’s premises were “allowed to stand in places to which it was obvious that the snails had freedom of access from outside the [insured’s] premises, and in which, indeed, snails and the slimy trails of snails were frequently found.” What We Do Know The bottle of ginger beer was purchased at the Wellmeadow Café on 26 August 1928 at 20:50.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Legal Reasoning
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1948 An Introduction to Legal Reasoning Edward Hirsch Levi Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward Hirsch Levi, "An Introduction to Legal Reasoning," 15 University of Chicago Law Review 501 (1948). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THI-E UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 15 SPRING 1948 NUMBER 3 AN INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL REASONING EDWARD H. LEv,* I THIS is an attempt to describe generally the process of legal rea- soning in the field of case law and in the interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It is important that the mechanism of legal reasoning should not be concealed by its pretense. The pretense is that the law is a system of known rules applied by a judge; the pretense has long been under attack.' In an important sense legal rules are never clear, and, if a rule had to be clear before it could be imposed, society would be impossible. The mechanism accepts the differences of view and ambiguities of words. It provides for the participation of the community in resolving the ambiguity by providing a forum for the discussion of policy in the gap of ambiguity. On serious controversial questions, it makes it possible to take the first step in the direction of what otherwise would be forbidden ends.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering the Precedential Value of Supreme Court Plurality Decisions
    WHEN THE COURT DIVIDES: RECONSIDERING THE PRECEDENTIAL VALUE OF SUPREME COURT PLURALITY DECISIONS MARK ALAN THURMON INTRODUCTION When the Supreme Court decides a case, the Federal District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals are responsible for finding the governing rules of law in that decision. The first lower court to deal with the issue often "defines" the holding of the case by reviewing the reasoning found in the Supreme Court's opinion. Other lower courts then rely largely on this interpretation. Plurali- ty decisions' greatly complicate this process because lower courts not only have to find the rationale of each opinion, but must also decide which opinion's rationale governs. With all these choices, it is not surprising that plurality decisions often do "more to confuse 2 the current state of the law than to clarify it." 1. A plurality decision is a case without an Opinion of the Court: A majority of the Court's members agree on the result, i.e., which party prevails-plaintiff or defendant, petitioner or respondent-but there is no majority agreement on the reason for that result. The Justices write several concurring opinions, explaining their differing views. If one of these opinions receives more votes than the others, it is designated the plurality opinion. For the purposes of this Note, plurality decisions are cases in which there is nei- ther explicit nor implicit agreement among a majority of the Justices on a proposition necessary to reach the result. This definition includes those decisions in which' there is no plurality opinion, i.e., no opinion that is joined by more Justices than join any other concurring opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ratio Decidendi : Adjudicative Rational and Source of Law H.K
    Bond Law Review Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 2 4-1-1989 Ratio Decidendi : Adjudicative Rational and Source of Law H.K. Lücke Bond University Recommended Citation Lücke, H.K. (1989) "Ratio Decidendi : Adjudicative Rational and Source of Law," Bond Law Review: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol1/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you by the Faculty of Law at ePublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bond Law Review by an authorized administrator of ePublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University's Repository Coordinator. Ratio Decidendi : Adjudicative Rational and Source of Law Abstract According to Professor Lücke, Goodhart’s ’material facts’ theory of precedent is the best explanation of ratio decidendi yet proposed. However, ’material’ and ’facts’, as used by Goodhart, are fundamentally ambiguous. ’Facts’ should be taken to mean the actual facts of the precedent, to be applied to other cases by analogical reasoning (not ’classes of facts’, to be applied deductively), Professor Lücke argues. ’Material’ should be taken to mean ’important for the purpose of justifying the decision’ (not ’important for prescriptive purposes’). So clarified (or, perhaps, modified) Goodhart’s theory yields a realistic and adequate explanation of the binding force of precedent. Keywords ratio decidendi, rule of precedent, Goodhart's Theory, classes of facts, material facts This article is available in Bond Law Review: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol1/iss1/2 Lücke: Ration Decidendi RATIO DECIDENDI" ADJUDICATIVE RATIONALE AND SOURCE OF LAW IlK L~cke Adjunct Professor, Bond University Professor Emeritus, University of Adelaide According to Professor L~icke, Goodhart’s ’material facts’ theory of precedent is the best explanation of ratio decidendi yet proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ratio Decidendi and Rules of Law
    Ratio Decidendi and Rules of Law R. N. GOODERSON Cambridge, England It is proposed in this article to join issue with Dr. A. L. Goodhart on his view that the ratio decidendi of a case is to be found by taking account (a) of the facts treated by the judge as material, and (b) his decision as based on them. The circumstance that Dr. Goodhart addresses himself to "the student faced with his first case book" 2 should not lead to the supposition that behind this modest facade there are no deep jurisprudential truths, for at least two other great writers have made considerable contribu- tions in this sphere in works addressed to beginners.3 There is no doubt that Dr. Goodhart's essay has proved of great value in providing the newcomer with an introduction to the study of case-law, and Professor Glanville Williams has a- dopted his approach to the subject in a book which has a very wide circulation among beginners in the study of law.4 It will however be submitted in this article that although Dr. Goodhart has done service to law students, whether beginners or lawyers of standing, by drawing attention to an aspect of case-law hither- to neglected, his attack upon the orthodox theory of the ratio decidendi leaves that theory very much where it stood before. What is the orthodox theory of the ratio decidendi? In the words of Professor Morgan, "the rules of law applied by the court, the application of which was required for the determination of the issues presented, are to be considered as decision",5 that is, ratio decidendi.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining the Ratio Decidenmi of a Case
    YALE LAw JOURNAL VOL XL. DECEMBER, 1930 No. 2 DETERMINING THE RATIO DECIDENMI OF A CASE ARTHUR L. GOODHART 0 IN discussing the nature of a precedent in English law Sir John Salmond says: "A precedent, therefore, is a judicial decision which contains in itself a principle. The underlying principle which thus forms its authoritative element is often termed the ratio decidcadi. The concrete decision is binding between the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio deci! zdi which alone has the force of law as regards the world at large." 2 The rule is stated as follows by Professor John Chipman Gray: "It must be observed that at the Common Law not every opin- ion expressed by a judge forms a Judicial Precedent. In order that an opinion may have the weight of a precedent, two things must concur: it must be, in the first place, an opinion given by a judge, and, in the second place, it must be an opinion the for- mation of which is necessary for the decision of a particular case; in other words, it must not be obiter dictinm." 2 *Fellow and Lecturer in Law, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Eng- land; editor of the LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW. 1 SALMoND, JURIsPRUDENcE (7th ed. 1924) 201. ,2GRAY, THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE LAW (2d ed. 1921) 261. of. 2 AUSTIN, JURISPRUDENCE (5th ed. 1885) 627: "It follows from what has preceded, that law made judicially must be found in the general grotnds (or must be found in the general reasons) of judicial decisions or resolu- tions of specific or particular cases: that is to say, in such grouzds, or such Teasrns, as detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the decided or resolved cases.
    [Show full text]