Talk:Case law

message: can anyone tell me the three difference between civil law an common law?
: I doubt it, since neither "civil law" nor "common law" are very precise (or monosemic) terms. Francis Davey 20:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick version as far as case law goes.  There are no binding precedents from prior court decisions, ie. stare decisis does not apply.  This does not mean civil law courts will not consider cases, merely that all case law is considered persuasive as opposed to binding.  This doesn't necessarily change the practice of courts much in a civil law system as so long as the rationale is good enough, judges are likely to follow 'case law', but on a different philoposophical premise than in the common law tradition.  If you want more, check out John Henry Merryman's book The Civil Law Tradition from the library.  It's in it's second edition.IMHO (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: can anyone tell me the three difference between civil law an common law?

message: For the paragraph:
Some judges are also known to rule against precedent on principle. A judge (or even an interim appeal court) may rule against a precedent that is outdated. The judge may feel the decision needs to be overturned due to more sophisticated legal reasoning. Such a judge may wish to help the law evolve by ruling against precedent and thereby indirectly inducing a losing party to appeal. The appeal court will then have an opportunity to review the lower court's decision and may adopt the lower court's reasoning, thereby overturning previous case law. This may also happen several times as the case works its way through intermediate appellate jurisdictions.
Would it be an idea to provide an example? A world-famous example is the Warren court's overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education. Benn M. 10:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the information in the link you provided.  The trial court in the Brown decision ruled in favor of the Topeka Board of Education in what it deemed to be in accordance with Plessy.  Your above quote refers to trial judges ruling against a precedent, not the Supreme Court overturning precedent.IMHO (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example Citation 

message: The example in the second paragraph (about the court system in Sweden) is outdated. The highest administrive court changed its name from Regeringsrätten to Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen in 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.219.196.48 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, find a source for this, and make the appropriate change, then. Lawdroid (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated example 

message: My reading of the current intro is that "case law" comes from courts.
So, when I compile the decisions of a body such as a patent office, is that not case law?
(When someone talks about "the case law of the Blah Patent Office", is that an error, a slight abuse, or is it correct?) Gronky (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Case law does come from courts.  What you're talking about is actually known as administrative law. Sometimes even lawyers will use the term case law to refer to administrative law in the form of published decisions of administrative agencies but that's generally regarded as informal and sloppy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coolcaesar - I think you are referring to American usage of "administrative law"; in England, and English-language discussion of European legal systems, "Administrative law" means something completely different. As an English lawyer, I would certainly consider it correct to refer to the "case law" of a patent office, as long as there is some notion of being guided by previous decisions.Lawdroid (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably correct that there's a difference.  It goes back to the whole concept of the separation of powers which is drilled into Americans at a young age as one of the methods by which the Founding Fathers of the United States sought to avoid the abuses of power frequently seen under the English crown (which were not addressed until the Representation of the People Acts).  In the U.S., we draw a very strong distinction between formal litigation before the judiciary and all other forms of dispute resolution.  The idea is that under the separation of powers, only the judiciary has the power to make case law (i.e., to make a binding interpretation of what the law is), under Marbury v. Madison.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is perhaps more broad - case law itself is not the same thing as stare decisis or binding precedent. So, decisions of the ECJ are a form of case law, even though they are not binding on anyone (including the ECJ) as a matter of law, except for the referring court in that case. This is so, even though all European states (including the UK) have a reasonably strong framework for the separation of powers (with, perhaps, the exception of certain eastern European states). Lawdroid (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  To improve the article then, the intro should say that there are two definitions - broad and narrow.  I'll be bold and make some changes.  Thanks for the clear and interesting comments here.  Gronky (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: , , and   -- Chiming in years later -- "case law of the patent office" is not "administrative law."  "Administrative law" is the statutes, court decisions, directives from the Executive Office of the President, etc. that govern what executive branch agencies can do, the steps they must take to do it, and the powers of Article III courts to review Executive Branch action.  The starting place for "administrative law" is the Administrative Procedure Act.  "Case law of the patent office" is decisions written by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and other parts of the Patent Office which the respective tribunals rely on as precedent.  The starting place for that is the Patent Act and Trademark Act.  So Gronky, yes, "the case law of the Blah Patent Office" is entirely correct and idiomatic.  Interestingly, the European Patent Office is quite strongly a "common law" jurisdiction in this sense, even though the ECJ is not!  BostonBowTie (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is patent office case law also "case law"? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clarification of the law by the court. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Clarification of the law by the court" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: How is Case law and Common law related? 102.145.112.120 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common and Case law. 

message: Can studebt ask asaylum in america 62.228.79.157 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reffuges