scholarly journals CASE-LAW PRACTICE: ON THE ISSUES OF CORRELATION WITH RELATED NOTIONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Nazar Stetsyk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Broad Meaning ◽  
Terminological Confusion

The article substantiates the need for research and formation of a complete and comprehensive concept of case-law practice, which should take into account the tendency of convergence and functional similarity of legal phenomena in modern legal systems. The formation of such a concept implies the needs to define the notions related to case-law practice as well as to designate a correlation with them. Attention is drawn to the importance of defining such related notions, the use of which can lead to terminological confusion and differences in their understanding. Therefore, the correlation with such related notions as judicial practice, case law, judicial precedent is identified. In the broad meaning of the term «judicial practice», which denotes the notion of activity or results of activity of all judicial bodies, it will correlate with the term «case-law practice» as a species notion that is included into the generic notion of judicial practice. In addition, the author takes into account the meaning of the term «judicial practice», used in the Civil law doctrine («jurisprudence constante», «ständige Rechtsprechung», «prajudice», «judicature» etc.), according to which judicial practice is not a set of any decisions in specific cases, but repetitive and stable, as well as not of any judicial bodies, but only of the supreme courts in the leading cases, and which become de facto binding on the lower courts. In this meaning, case-law practice will be the broader notion that includes judicial practice. Case law is also a notion related with case-law practice. Case law covers legal norms formed in the decisions of the supreme courts, and is used primarily in Common law as opposed to statutory law. Case law does not include all decisions and not of all judicial bodies, but only such decisions of the supreme courts that contain legal norms, i.e. binding judicial precedents. Case law does not cover convincing persuasive precedents of the lower courts, which have a recommendatory nature. Therefore, case law is the part of case-law practice, which in addition to case law also includes judicial precedents of the lower courts. It is substantiated that case-law practice is a collective notion that covers a set of judicial precedents, just similarly as the notion of legislation is a collective concept of laws. The distinction between these notions, despite the fact that in most cases the ambiguity of such terms that denote them, is removed by the context of their usage, allows us to clarify the features and nature of case-law practice. Key words: judicial precedent, judicial practice, unity of judicial practice, judiciary, supreme courts, court decision, comparative jurisprudence

Explaining Difference in the Quantity of Cases Heard by Courts of Last Resort

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 346-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bravo-Hurtado Pablo ◽  
Álvaro Bustos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Optimal Number ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Law Making

Abstract While civil law courts of last resort—e.g., cassation courts in France, Italy, and Chile—review up to 90% of appealed cases, common law courts of last resort—e.g., supreme courts of the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada—hear as few as 1% of the same petitions. In this study, we postulate that these different policies can be explained by a comparatively larger commitment from common law courts of last resort to judicial law-making rather than judicial uniformity. While courts require few hearings to update the law (in theory one decision is sufficient), they need a large number of hearings to maximize consistency in the lower courts’ interpretation of the law. We show that the optimal number of hearings increases with an increment in the courts’ concern for uniformity. We also show that if hearing costs are linear then the hearing policies of all courts can be classified in only two types. In addition, we predict important changes in hearing policies when the number of petitions increases. Finally, we find that hearing rates and reversal disutility operate as two ways in which a legal system can achieve a given level of judicial uniformity.

Case Law in Ukraine: On the Issues of Its Introduction and Development in the Activity of Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 274-293
Author(s):  
Nazarii Stetsyk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Official Recognition ◽  
Court Practice

The article covers the doctrinal issues of judicial precedent and case law in the legal doctrine, substantiates the need for formalization and official recognition of the actual role of the decisions of the supreme courts in similar cases. Traditional doctrinal delimitation and contrasting case law and judicial practice leads to refuse of taking into account the positive experience of the functioning of case law in common law countries. Taking into account such experience would help to satisfy the demands of the court practice in raising the significance of the decisions of the supreme courts in similar cases. In Ukraine, as in many post-Soviet countries, there is a tendency to refuse explanations of legislation on the basis of summarizing of court practice, and at the same time formalization and official recognition of the bindiness and normativity of decisions of the supreme courts in specific cases. In this regard, the peculiarities of the introducing and development of the case law of the Supreme Court in Ukraine at various stages are analyzed. Also highlighted their positive and negative aspects.

scholarly journals CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT

2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Law ◽  
Codal Provisions ◽  
Code Civil

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

scholarly journals The publication of judicial decisions as a reason for convincing precedent

1970 ◽  
pp. 195-199
Author(s):  
Roman Sabodash
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
General Idea ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
State Register ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

The paper shows how the publication of court decisions influenced the formation of a precedent. The author reviewed scientific works devoted to research the precedent in common and continental law. The research explains that the formation of precedent in England was accompanied by development of the judgment’s reviews and their prevalence among lawyers. Of course, publication of court decisions was not a major factor in setting a precedent, but it played a significant role in this. The paper also describes facts of the publication of court decisions in Italy, Germany, France and the Netherlands, as well as the admissibility of their citations at the court of cassation. The general idea of the paper is that convincing precedent exists and is used although the countries of continental law do not have a «classic» precedent. The paper gives a review of the importance of the state register of court decisions for setting a convincing precedent in Ukraine. The author analyzes the pros and cons of citing court decisions. It’s stated that, unfortunately, the quotations of court decisions is not always correct and sometimes amounts to rewriting the «right» legal position without comparing the circumstances of the case. The article concludes that the practice of applying a convincing precedent in Ukraine is only emerging and needs further improvement.          It has been found out that the publication of judgments of supreme courts is one of the factors that helped to establish precedent in common law countries. The publication of court rulings also created the conditions for a convincing precedent in civil law countries (especially in private law). At the same time, the formation of a “convincing precedent» in countries where court decisions are published in publicly available electronic court registers is much faster than in common law countries. Of course, the structure and the significance of the precedent in the common law and civil law countries are different, but one cannot dismiss that publication of court decisions as one of the factors for establishing the precedent.

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM: RUSSIAN EXPERIENCE IN THE WORLD CONTEXT

2017 ◽  
pp. 40-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Виктор Момотов ◽  
Viktor Momotov
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Negative Attitude ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Anglo American

In Russian legal science there is a wide-spread belief according to which legal precedents are not sources of Russian law, because Russian legal system forms a part of continental legal system. Various researchers believe that judicial practice does not contain legal norms and consequently case law is not a component of Russian legal framework. The present paper contains the theoretical and historical legal research of the place and role of case law in Anglo-American and continental legal systems. It’s shown that for long historical periods legal precedents were recognized as sources of law not only in Great Britain and the USA, but also in major European legal systems, while at the present time differentiation of legal systems with respect to their attitude towards case law is becoming outdated. Furthermore, based on the research of various legal scholars’ traditions (principally of the positivistic and the sociological traditions) this article demonstrates that negative attitude towards case law is largely determined by the formalistic and obsolete understanding of the term ”source of law”, coming from the misinterpretation of positivism. The paper also presents the current development trends of case law as a source of law. In particular the article outlines the proactive interpretations of new statutory provisions issued by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the global uniqueness of such interpretations and the influence of scientific–technological progress and public needs on the highest court’s interpretations. The mutual interference of case law and statutory law is shown.

2. Legal systems and sources of law

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-70
Author(s):  
Scott Slorach ◽  
Judith Embley ◽  
Peter Goodchild ◽  
Catherine Shephard
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status

This chapter focuses on the sources of law in England & Wales, and is organised as follows. Section 2.1 describes the key jurisdictions relevant to lawyers in England and Wales. Section 2.2 deals with the issue of where the law comes from: sources of law. Section 2.3 reviews the development of the two ‘traditional’ sources of law in England and Wales: case law and statutes. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 consider the status and operation of EU and international law, including the potential effect of Brexit. Section 2.7 goes on to discuss public and private law, common law, and civil law, and other classifications used by lawyers. This is followed by a discussion of legal systems and their cultures across the world.

scholarly journals The barratry of the shipmaster in early modern law: the approach of Italian and English law courts

2019 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 504-574
Author(s):  
Guido Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Walk Away ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
The Difference

SummaryFor a long time, the concept of barratry (at least in its maritime meaning) was one and the same on both sides of the Channel. The barratry of the shipmaster was part of the mercantile usages, and it identified the intentionally blameworthy conduct of the master. When law courts began to decide on insurance litigation they were confronted with a notion quite alien to them. Broadly speaking, the shipmaster’s barratry could well be considered a fraud of sort. But in order to decide on its occurrence in a specific case, law courts had to analyse it in legal terms, and so according to the specific legal categories of their own system. The point ceases to be trivially obvious if we think that the different legal framework of civil and common law courts progressively led to very different interpretations of the same thing. Thus, with the shift of insurance litigation from mercantile justice to law courts maritime barratry began to acquire increasingly different features in the two legal systems. Very often, the very same conduct of the shipmaster was considered as negligent by civil law courts and barratrous by common law courts. The difference was of great practical importance, for many policies excluded barratry from the risks insured against. So, depending on the kind of law court, an insurer could be charged with full liability for the mishap or walk away without paying anything. If the beginning of the story was the same, its end could not have been more different.

In Our Image: Colonial Discourse and the Anglicization of the Law of Mandatory Palestine

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assaf Likhovski
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Colonial Discourse ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Shoulder Blade

My story is full of holes. The first hole, or rather, ditch, was dug in 1930 by the municipality of Haifa. An Arab, Dr. Caesar Khoury, fell into the ditch and fractured his shoulder-blade.Could Dr. Khoury recover? The law of torts of mandatory Palestine was found in the Mejelle — an Ottoman code of Moslem civil law. Did the Mejelle provide a remedy in the case of personal injury? “Unfortunately,” said Judge Francis Baker, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of Palestine, “the Mejelle dealt with liability for damages caused by animals to property, but it was ‘silent’ with regards to injuries caused to persons”. Therefore, Dr. Khoury could not recover.The second hole in my story belongs to a Jew, Feivel Danovitz. In 1939, Danovitz was run down by a truck in Tel Aviv. He sued the driver and the owner of the truck. The lower courts of Tel Aviv decided that if the Mejelle did not deal with liability for personal injury, that meant that there was a hole in the tort law of Palestine. Such a hole could be filled by recourse to the English common law in accordance with the provisions of Article 46 of the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922. Since the English common law recognized liability for personal injury, Danovitz could recover.

scholarly journals Requirements for assuming a permanent establishment under Art. 5 OECD Model Tax Convention

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-125
Author(s):  
Mandy Witt
Keyword(s):  
Research Question ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Permanent Establishment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Article 5

In January 2019, the German Federal Finance Court defined the legally binding requirements with respect to a fixed place of business being a matter of a permanent establishment according to German law, thus the revenue generated being subject to the German taxation.This article addresses the research question ‘Which criteria have to be met by a permanent establishment to be effective for tax purposes?’Regarding the methods, the article reviews relevant literature and case law to identify the prevailing and dissenting opinions on the requirements for assuming a fixed place of business under Art. 5(5) OECD-Model Tax Convention. As to the question whether one can refer to a fixed place of business as a permanent establishment, the courts use to differentiate between Civil Jurisdiction and Common Law. For the sake of clarity, the courts coined the article 5 of the OECD[1] Model Tax Convention. In accordance to the abovementioned Model Tax Convention, binding provisions were defined on the international level for both, countries using the Common Law as well as for those using the Civil Law, with respect to the requirements as to a permanent establishment and the resulting country of taxation to be applied. In doing so, the question arose whether for instance a lockbox would represent a permanent establishment or not.However, the contracting states did not succeed in determining clear requirements as to the existence of the establishment in question. In fact, they left it to the state in question to define their respective double-tax agreements according to their own needs.    

scholarly journals A COMPARISON OF THE COMMON LAW BASED DUTY WITH ITS CIVIL LAW EQUIVALENT

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azamat Omarov ◽  
Asylbek Kultasov ◽  
Kanat Abdilov
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Legal Term ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
The World ◽  
The Common

The article discusses the features of civil law in different countries. The authors studied the origins of the modern tradition of civil law, comparing the legal systems of two European countries. One of the traditional classifications of duties in civil law is analyzed, the conclusion is made about the inappropriateness of the allocation of personal and universal duties. In comparative law, there are many situations where the same legal term has different meanings, or where different legal terms have same legal effect. This confusion most often occurs when civil lawyers have to deal with common law, or vice versa, when common law lawyers deal with civil law issues. While there are many issues which are dealt with in the same way by the civil law and common law systems, there remain also significant differences between these two legal systems related to legal structure, classification, fundamental concepts, terminology, etc. As lawyers know, legal systems in countries around the world generally fall into one of two main categories: common law systems and civil law systems. There are roughly 150 countries that have what can be described as primarily civil law systems, whereas there are about 80 common law countries. The main difference between the two systems is that in common law countries, case law – in the form of published judicial opinions – is of primary importance, whereas in civil law systems, codified statutes predominate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document