An argument in favor of the fight system in the american legal system

Mercury Bobcat — [ edit ] — Mercury Bobcat Runabout Lincoln-Mercury dealers marketed a rebadged variant of the Pinto, as the Mercury Bobcat, beginning with model year in Canada produced in all of the same body styles. It was styled with a unique eggcrate grille and chrome headlamp bezels. The rear featured modified double width taillamps for sedan and Runabout models. Lesser trimmed versions were offered in subsequent model years.

An argument in favor of the fight system in the american legal system

Perell Originally published in 2: Introduction It gives away no secret to observe that lawyers have their own unique discipline and approach to the resolution of legal problems. Not surprisingly, there are laws about determining the law. One of the most important of these laws is the law of precedent or stare decisis.

That doctrine and its significance in practical terms are the subject matters of this paper. This paper is also about how a lawyer in everyday practice answers a legal question and how that lawyer evaluates and formulates legal arguments. The paper is only to a very limited extent concerned about the practical problems of how to find or look up the law; rather, the concern is how a lawyer should deal with the authorities that he or she finds.

Because different legal systems have different approaches to the proper way of deciding a legal point, the perspective will be Canadian and primarily that of Ontario. The doctrine of stare decisis What is the doctrine of precedent or of stare decisis?

Professor Gall described it in the following terms: The operation of the doctrine of stare decisis is best explained by reference to the English translation of the Latin phrase. Basically, under the doctrine of stare decisis, the decision of a higher court within the same provincial jurisdiction acts as binding authority on a lower court within that same jurisdiction.

The decision of a court of another jurisdiction only acts as persuasive authority. The degree of persuasiveness is dependent upon various factors, including, first, the nature of the other jurisdiction.

Second, the degree of persuasiveness is dependent upon the level of court which decided the precedent case in the other jurisdiction. Other factors include the date of the precedent case, on the assumption that the more recent the case, the more reliable it will be as authority for a given proposition, although this is not necessarily so.

What the doctrine of precedent declares is that cases must be decided the same way when their material facts are the same. Obviously it does not require that all the facts should be the same. We know that in the flux of life all the facts of a case will never recur, but the legally material facts may recur and it is with these that the doctrine is concerned.

The ratio decidendi [reason of deciding] of a case can be defined as the material facts of the case plus the decision thereon. The same learned author 2 who advanced this definition went on to suggest a helpful formula.

Suppose that in a certain case facts A, B and C exist, and suppose that the court finds that facts B and C are material and fact A immaterial, and then reaches conclusion X e.

An argument in favor of the fight system in the american legal system

Then the doctrine of precedent enables us to say that in any future case in which facts B and C exist, or in which facts A and B and C exist the conclusion must be X. If in a future case A, B, C, and D exist, and the fact D is held to be material, the first case will not be a direct authority, though it may be of value as an analogy.

In other words, the presence of a new fact D may have the effect of distinguishing the future case from the precedent or conversely the precedent may be extended to apply to the future case. There is considerable literature about whether the doctrine of stare decisis is a good or bad one 4 but, the doctrine is usually justified by arguments which focus on the desirability of stability and certainty in the law and also by notions of justice and fairness.

It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of litigants and the opposite way between another. It would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite principles.

If a case was decided against me yesterday when I was a defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am plaintiff. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material and moral, of my rights.

The Department of Highways, 7 Middleton J. But, in my view, liberty to decide each case as you think right, without regard to principles laid down in previous similar cases, would only result in a completely uncertain law in which no citizen would know his rights or liabilities until he knew before what Judge his case would come and could guess what view that Judge would take on a consideration of the matter, without any regard to previous decisions.

Frankena as to what constitutes injustice: The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two similar individuals in similar circumstances and one of them is treated better or worse than the other.

In this case, the cry of injustice rightly goes up against the responsible agent or group; and unless that agent or group can establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the individuals concerned and their circumstances, he or they will be guilty as charged.

For example, Lord Denning, the former Master of the Rolls has argued: If lawyers hold to their precedents too closely, forgetful of the fundamental principles of truth and justice which they should serve, they may find the whole edifice comes tumbling down about them.

Just as the scientist seeks for truth, so the lawyer should seek for justice.Government Regulation of Business: The Moral Arguments. Friday, July 01, In response to the argument that government regulation of business defends individual rights, we can reply that the doctrine of human rights invoked by defenders of government regulation is very bloated.

A just legal system would prepare itself to deal with. The Case for Reparations. Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.

April marks the th anniversary of the U.S. Civil War, which began when Confederate forces opened fire upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. Secession summary: the secession of Southern States led to the establishment of the Confederacy and ultimately the Civil War.

It was the most serious secession movement in the United States and was defeated when the Union armies defeated the Confederate armies in the Civil War, The two-party system came into being because the structure of U.S. elections, with one seat tied to a geographic district, tends to lead to dominance by two major political parties.

Even when there are other options on the ballot, most voters understand that minor parties have no real chance of winning even a single office.

An argument in favor of the fight system in the american legal system

The argument for. The system is not fair. Institutional racism is alive and well in the juvenile justice system, as it is in the criminal justice system. It's easier to identify with people that are more like yourself, so if you have judges that are predominantly from that same community, they can .

Argument analysis: On new health care case, a single word may tell it all - SCOTUSblog