Consider the doctrine of stare decisis. Should courts follow past rulings, or should they decide cases...

Consider the doctrine of stare decisis. Should courts follow past rulings, or should they decide cases anew each time, without regard to past decisions? For example, should Texas v. Johnson stand because it is precedent, or should the justices take a “fresh look” at the issue of flag burning? Cite any reference used.

Solutions

Expert Solution

keosha answered 1 month ago

Next > < Previous

Related Solutions

Explain how the doctrine of stare decisis works. Why is it important? A corporation currently has...

Explain how the doctrine of stare decisis works. Why is it important? A corporation currently has income solely generated within the United States. However, next year the corporation plans to extend into foreign markets. What tax issues may arise?

Court rulings on anti-trust cases tend to follow one of two principles, the rule of reason...

Court rulings on anti-trust cases tend to follow one of two principles, the rule of reason or the per se rule. Which of these two principles do you believe should guide courts in ruling on an anti-trust case. Write a 250 word posting in which you state and justify your selection.

should attorneys be required or forced to do “pro bono” cases by the courts?

In nuisance cases, courts may consider the following factor(s) in determining the reasonableness of the activity:

In nuisance cases, courts may consider the following factor(s) in determining the reasonableness of the activity:Question options: 1)the societal value of the harmful activity. 2)whether the plaintiff stood by and did nothing to prevent the creation of thenuisance. 3)whether the plaintiff moved to an area where an existing nuisance was located. 4)all of the above. 5)two of the above.

Subjects