Is this is an appropriate way of distinguishing cases? I was researching how lawyers, courts distinguish cases and I came across this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/index.html#PreLayDowRul. It says that cases can be distinguished by a later court based on the following constraints: (1) in formulating the ratio of the later case, the factors in the ratio of the earlier case must be retained, and (2) the ruling in the later case must be such that it would still support the result reached in the precedent case. It also says that cases can be distinguished &quot;even though those facts do not feature in the ratio of the earlier case.&quot; This article also points out that &quot;this power is not merely given to courts of the same level of authority as the one laying down the precedent (as is the case with overruling), but is given to every court lower in the judicial hierarchy.&quot; Is this reasoning valid? Doesn't this go against the doctrine of stare decisis? Kmiec, Keenan. The Origin and Current Meanings of &quot;Judicial Activism&quot;, California Law Review (2004): Some instances of disregarding precedent are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare showing of unity in a Supreme Court opinion discussing judicial activism, Justice Stevens wrote that a circuit court &quot;engaged in an indefensible brand of judicial activism&quot; when it &quot;refused to follow&quot; a &quot;controlling precedent&quot; of the Supreme Court. The rule that lower courts should abide by controlling precedent, sometimes called &quot;vertical precedent,&quot; can safely be called settled law. It appears to be equally well accepted that the act of disregarding vertical precedent qualifies as one kind of judicial activism. &quot;Horizontal precedent,&quot; the doctrine requiring a court &quot;to follow its own prior decisions in similar cases,&quot; is a more complicated and debatable matter.... Does the below from the article: this power is not merely given to courts of the same level of authority as the one laying down the precedent (as is the case with overruling), but is given to every court lower in the judicial hierarchy. conflict with what stare decisis is? How can lower courts avoid a controlling precedent and not follow settled law as pointed out by Justice Stevens? Am I interpreting what the author is saying correctly? Can the lower courts add factors to the ratio of the earlier decision such that the result would be the same as in the earlier case and then distinguish seemingly like cases?
Distinguishing a case which was decided by a higher court does not violate the doctrine of stare decisis. If the case can be distinguished, then it is not a controlling precedent. The term &quot;controlling&quot; indicates not only that the decision is binding on lower courts, but also that it applies to (or cannot be distinguished from) the facts of the specific case in question. Whether a precedent is &quot;controlling&quot; or not, in a particular case, could itself be a question for an appellate court. So if a lower court distinguishes a previous decision and therefore declines to follow it, the appellate court could say that was an error, and set aside the lower court's decision for not following a controlling precedent.
The alternative is the same whether just one lower court or many lower courts ignore SCOTUS precedent. An aggrieved parts will appeal the lower court ruling, and the matter will work its way up the ladder until SCOTUS directly rules on this application of the law. This sort of happens all the time, when lower courts don't apply the ostensive "final ruling" because they find that there is some other overriding consideration ("that rule only applies to businesses employing more than 50 people"). Where the case to be remanded to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with SCOTUS opinion and still the lower courts refuse to comply, i.e open rebellion, SCOTUS could rule that non-compliance by lower courts constitutes contempt, and an order could be issued for the removal (in some form) of offending parties (we may presume, the justices of the lower court). The statute outlining court power allows on order of imprisonment for "disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command". Federal marshals would then arrest non-compliant judges, unless the marshals too are in open rebellion. If the judges in question were federal judges, the marshals would have to decide whether to obey the order of SCOTUS vs. the order of the district or circuit court. Since under the US Constitution states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish", it is objectively established that SCOTUS rulings are superior, so provided that the marshals elect to uphold their oath of office, they will enforce the SCOTUS ruling. However, citizen action becomes irrelevant once SCOTUS has made its ruling, and the matter has moved from legal determination of fact to enforcement of established fact.
Separation of powers means that the judiciary can't pass laws or executive orders. It doesn't mean that the judiciary can't interfere with their passage and enforcement. Quite the opposite -- the checks and balances inherent in the system ensure that the judiciary can interfere in some cases. One of the checks is the concept of judicial review: the courts' power to review each branch's actions for compliance with the constitution -- and more importantly, to strike down actions that are unconstitutional. When a court strikes down part of a law, though, they aren't writing a new law, or even repealing a law. They are overturning parts of the existing law -- basically declaring the unconstitutional parts of it void, to be treated as if they didn't exist. In India's constitution, Article 13 provides the main basis for this power. Article 13.(2) (in Part III) states: (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. This article, aside from making it clear that laws passed by the State can be void, also gives the Supreme Court the inroads it needs to do the overturning. The catch is, the Court can not overturn most laws passed by Parliament, just the ones that Part III can be construed to prohibit. (While the judiciary is not explicitly named, it's the only branch that can officially say whether or not a law is constitutional. It'd be a conflict of interest anyway for Parliament to do it. Parliament, in passing the law, presumably wanted it to be enforced, and thus has an interest in avoiding too much scrutiny.) So the Court can already declare an unconstitutional law void, because it already is...and that's before we even get to Article 142. Let's take a look at the article anyway: (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself. Note that (2) explicitly grants the power to issue subpoenas, contempt citations, etc. So we can't claim that's what (1) was intended for, and have to ask what it means. The Court decided that the article gives it the power to order the government not to violate your rights, as such an order is "necessary for doing complete justice". And as the final arbiter of the meaning of the very text that defines it into existence, it has that prerogative. And due process is one of the rights protected. Article 21 (also in Part III): No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. "Procedure established by law" is a much weaker phrase than "due process", and technically meant that anything that the government scribbled into law was good enough. But case law has all but removed the distinction. (See Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India.) Basically, any procedure for depriving someone of life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. (Otherwise a law declaring you a criminal, to be arrested on sight, would be constitutional.) "Someone filed a complaint" simply wasn't gonna fly.
No The importance of following precedent, and the principle of stare decisis were inherited by the early US legal system from the British Common Law system, and have been taken as part of the natural order of the legal system by US courts ever since. This extends even to a court overruling itself. US Courts are notoriously reluctant to overrule their past decisions, even when current court members agree, However they will do so from time to time. The US Supreme Court in particular will flatly overturn previous decisions, especially on Constitutional issues, when it thinks there is no other way to achieve a proper outcome, although it often prefers to distinguish the prior decision without actually overruling it. I think the fastest and most extreme case where the US Supreme Court overruled itself was that of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the second flag-salute case. (This was also a particularly significant case.) This reversed Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) a case on the exact same issue, only three years previously, and a vote of 8-1 on the first case became a vote of 6-3 the other way, with only one new Justice on the Court. Only Justice Frankfurter, the author of the fist decision, issued a dissenting opinion in the Barnette case, and no other Justice formally joined that opinion.
A motion to dismiss sets no precedent Whether it succeeds or not, it does not result in a judgement on the merits, it is simply an analysis on whether the case as pleaded shows the defendant has a case to answer. The case would have to go to trial, have a judgement issued (i.e. not settle), and await the result of final appeals (if any) before it would be considered precedent. As to your final question Is it considered intellectual property theft to capitalize on synthetic datasets produced by OpenAI's LLMs? No one knows. Hence the lawsuit.
The future prospects are negligible, and the present status of such influence is non-existent. In a few cases, you may find an appellate decision citing some statement from a reputable law review. Here is an article that addresses such influences on SCOTUS (which, the authors note, have decreased over time). However, you are describing a wingnut legal theory, and courts do not rely on wingnut legal theories, they rely on what the actual law is.
This is a quite complicated area of evidence law in the U.S. as there are many statements which are inadmissible under the hearsay rule, but there are also many statements that would otherwise be hearsay that fall within exceptions to the hearsay rule. In U.S. federal court practice, hearsay is governed mostly by Federal Rules of Evidence 103, 104(a), 201, 801-807, and 1101. Most state court rules of evidence in the U.S. with regard to hearsay closely track the Federal Rules of Evidence. Some states do not follow this pattern but are substantively very similar as the Federal Rules of Evidence largely track of the common law rules of evidence before they were codified. Rule 801 provides two exclusions from the definition of hearsay and a foundational definition. Rule 802 prohibits the introduction of hearsay into evidence unless an exception applies. Rule 803 provides 23 exceptions to the rule. Rule 804 provides five more exception to the rule. Rule 807 provides a final residual exception. So, in proceedings where the hearsay rule applies there are 31 main exceptions to the general rule, in addition to the argument that the general rule does not apply, but this still excludes lots of statements. Rule 201 (judicial notice) is another exception. Some of the main reasons to admit hearsay are that: It is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (e.g. to prove the someone was present and talking at a place not that what they said was true, or to prove that someone said something defamatory or fraudulent, or to prove the someone made a &quot;verbal act&quot; with legal significance like agreeing to a contract or ordering someone to do something). It is a statement of a party opponent or someone affiliated with a party opponent (i.e. someone affiliated with the other side in the lawsuit or criminal case). It is a prior statement of a person made under oath and subject to cross-examination. It is a business record or public record or an &quot;ancient document&quot; (currently ancient means before 1998 in the federal courts, and typically more than twenty-years old in the state courts). It is a market quotation. It is a statement made describing things &quot;in the moment&quot;, for medical diagnosis, or when the facts were fresh in the &quot;declarant's&quot; mind. It pertains to rights in real property, or to family relationships. It is a statement contrary to the interests of the person making it. It is a statement made when the declarant's death was believed to be imminent (i.e. a dying declaration). It is a statement made against someone who caused the witness to be unavailable. There are reasons that the statement is reliable and the intent to provide the statement is cleared with the court in advance. The matter upon which a statement is made is of general public knowledge not reasonably subject to dispute, is easily confirmed without doubt by a court, or is from a learned treatise. Hearsay objections are also waived if a timely objection isn't made to them. See Federal Rule of Evidence 103. And, courts have some discretion to allow hearsay testimony on immaterial matters or matters that are not seriously disputed in the case for expediency's sake. Rules 104(a) (excluding preliminary matters) and 1101 set forth when the hearsay rule applies and when it does not. Rule 1101 excludes from the rule a variety of preliminary matters, mostly in criminal cases such as: grand-jury proceedings extradition or rendition; issuing an arrest warrant, criminal summons, or search warrant; a preliminary examination in a criminal case; sentencing; granting or revoking probation or supervised release; and considering whether to release on bail or otherwise. Rule 805 governs the complicated situation of hearsay within hearsay. Rule 806 coordinates the hearsay rule with rules on how it is proper to introduce evidence about the credibility of a witness. There is also a constitutional rule of criminal procedure, called the &quot;confrontation right&quot; that established minimum standards for the exclusion of hearsay evidence in criminal trials even when a court's procedural rules do not exclude it. Most states also have a hearsay rule pertaining to oral promises made by dead people called the dead man's statute, and limitations on introducing oral statements related to written agreements called respectively, the parole evidence rule and the statute of frauds. In contrast, in the U.K. courts, roughly speaking, hearsay is generally admissible when the person making the underlying hearsay statement is available to testify, or is unavailable, which subsumes a large share of the U.S. hearsay rule, and makes much more hearsay admissible. U.K. practice would also allow admission of almost anything without a U.S. hearsay exception since they are derived from British common law evidence rules related to hearsay. The main purpose of the hearsay rule is to prevent a defendant in a criminal case or lawsuit from being denied an ability to cross-examine witnesses in court because they would like to present evidence by affidavit or letter instead, effectively placing that burden on the prosecution in criminal cases, or on a plaintiff in simple civil cases, rather than forcing the defendant to pro-actively subpoena witnesses for the other side in the case. The rule has a broader sweep than that, but that is its core purpose.
Overview This would not be uniform for all courts, even in a single state, nor would it be the same for all kinds of evidence. Also, few rules regarding the timing of disclosure of evidence are absolute. A judge's handling of a request to introduce late disclosed evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo, on appeal, so a judge is afforded some leeway in how the general rules are applied. In General Jurisdiction Courts In courts of general jurisdiction (i.e. those that handle large claims), disclosure of evidence well in advance of trial is the norm. The two big deadlines are usually the close of discovery (a deadline usually set in the pre-trial process), and to a lesser extent, the deadline for disclosing a final set of witnesses and exhibits shortly before trial in immediate pre-trial disclosures. (There are parallel deadlines at different steps in the process for adding new parties to a lawsuit and for raising new legal issues.) There are two main exceptions to that principle. Impeachment, Rebuttal And Authentication Evidence One is that evidence for impeachment of someone else's testimony or rebuttal to something offered by the other side, especially if the statement to be impeached or rebutted was unexpected (e.g. when the testimony to be impeached or rebutted comes from a third-party witness not in close coordination with either party), is generally allowed even in the absence of disclosure. Late disclosure of evidence solely necessary to authenticate evidence that has already been disclosed is likewise usually treated very leniently. The Good Cause Exception The other is that late introduction of evidence is usually allowed only for &quot;good cause&quot; (e.g. the evidence was only discovered or only came into being at the last minute). And, in &quot;good cause&quot; cases, often the other side will be given the opportunity to continue the hearing or trial to allow them additional time to prepare to respond to the new evidence (an opportunity that most litigants will waive in practice to avoid the long delay associated with getting a new trial date). An analysis of &quot;good cause&quot; also considers the prejudice to each side of excluding the evidence and the materiality of the evidence. For example, if the late evidence is something created by the defendant, even if it wasn't formally disclosed, a judge is much more likely to allow it to come in than a judge is if the other party has never seen the evidence before. Similarly, a judge will often be quite lenient about late disclose of exhibits that merely compile or summarize evidence that has already been disclosed because it is not prejudicial and could save time. Judges are also loath to exclude highly material &quot;smoking gun&quot; evidence that would otherwise be admissible and clearly resolve the case on the merits, but are likely to rebuff efforts to introduce evidence not disclosed in a timely motion if it is cumulative or secondary in importance or addresses only a satellite or collateral issue or credibility in general. A judge is more likely to admit late disclosed evidence if the other party was in some way responsible for its late discovery (e.g. by excluding it from an index in a case where the volume of documents disclosed was voluminous, or encouraging a third-party not to disclose it). Judges are less lenient towards late disclosed expert witness testimony than they are to admit late disclosed fact witness testimony. Limited Jurisdiction Courts and Special Proceedings In courts of limited jurisdiction (especially small claims court), in contrast, there is often little or no pre-trial disclosure of evidence and new evidence can be presented at any time until you &quot;close&quot; your case (either because you say you are done presenting evidence or because the judge limits the time you have to present evidence and cuts you off). Requirements to disclose evidence in advance also tend to be more lenient in specialized proceedings (e.g. probate disputes, evictions, foreclosure, mental health proceedings) and is usually absent in evidentiary hearing of pre-trial relief (like evidentiary hearings to determine if a court has jurisdiction, temporary restraining orders and pre-judgment attachments) in cases in general jurisdiction courts. Post-Trial Relief Proceeding Exceptions It is sometimes possible to introduce newly discovered evidence as late as a motion for post-trial relief (or even in an even later motion to set aside a judgment), but usually, the very latest point at which you can introduce evidence is the close of your case at trial (in the case of a plaintiff, often at the halfway point in a trial as a plaintiff is not always permitted to present new evidence after the defendant closes his or her case). Consequences Of Evidence Disclosure Deadlines Evidence disclosure deadlines provide important value by preventing the previously common practice of &quot;trial by surprise&quot; that often led to unjust results. But, the idea that there is a time limit on disclosing evidence is quite counterintuitive for the average person because it is contrary to how people usually prove things to other people in every day life which is more of a dialog and less of a one sided presentation. Failing to follow these requirements, or not realizing their importance and finality, is one of the most common ways that people not represented by counsel make mistakes that impair their chance of prevailing at trial. Many litigants who are unfamiliar with the courts have a very hard time understanding that there is a deadline for disclosing evidence prior to trial, and often, even in trial, will say things like &quot;I have this evidence that I could show you to show that I'm telling the truth&quot; when in reality, at trial, it is your last chance to present evidence and you can't supplement your evidence after the fact.