David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 30 (3):273-290 (2011)
Doctrinally, a precedent is a case of the same or higher court that furnishes an authoritative rule for the determination of the case at hand, either because the facts are alike, or, if the facts are different, because the principle that governed the first case is applicable to the different facts. In this article I try to free precedent form the dominant doctrinal view by offering a more intuitive conception: that to be precedent means to be treated as precedent. Put differently, I attempt to see precedent not as descriptive of a previous decision or rule but as the aggregate effect of responses to one or a series of court decisions in the legal community. I illustrate this viewpoint by developing a version of a response-dependent concept that incorporates our intuitive grasp of how precedent works. In the pursuit of this task I rely on the basic philosophical premises of response-dependence theory and on one paradigmatic response-dependent concept—the quality of being funny
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Horty (2004). The Result Model of Precedent. Legal Theory 10 (1):19-31.
Kristin Lefebvre (2007). An Ethical Evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding ERISA Interpretation. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):327-334.
Raimo Siltala (2000). A Theory of Precedent: From Analytical Positivism to a Post-Analytical Philosophy of Law. Hart Pub..
William A. Edmundson (2007). Schauer on Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court. Georgia State University Law Review 24 (2):403-13.
L. Karl Branting (2003). A Reduction-Graph Model of Precedent in Legal Analysis. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):59-95.
Jussi Haukioja (2007). How (Not) to Specify Normal Conditions for Response-Dependent Concepts. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):325 – 331.
Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-Cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent.
Michael Watkins & James Shelley (2012). Response-Dependence About Aesthetic Value. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (3):338-352.
Michael Sullivan (1990). Pragmatism and Precedent: A Response to Dworkin. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 26 (2):225 - 248.
Frank A. Hindriks (2006). Acceptance-Dependence: A Social Kind of Response-Dependence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):481–498.
John K. Davis (2004). Precedent Autonomy and Subsequent Consent. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):267-291.
John Horty (2011). Rules and Reasons in the Theory of Precedent. Legal Theory 17 (1):1-33.
Added to index2011-02-13
Total downloads112 ( #32,243 of 1,789,998 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #424,764 of 1,789,998 )
How can I increase my downloads?