Chapter 2　The Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Ratio Decidendi or Holding of a Case

导读

The justifications commonly given for the doctrine may be summarized in four words:equality,predictability,economy,and respect. Equality argues that the applications ofthe same rule to successive similar cases results in equality of treatment for all coming before the courts. Consistent following of precedents contributes to predictability in future disputes. Economy requires the use of established criteria to settle new cases to save time and energy. Adherence to earlier decisions show due respect for the wisdom and experience of prior generations of judges. Computer storage and retrieval of legal information provides a massive amount of relevant/applicable cases and arms lawyers with a rich base of sources of law in argument and persuasion,which judges must consider and take into account in decision and stipulating ratio decidendi.

The doctrine of stare decisis rests mainly on the assumption that a“case in point”has“binding authority”over the issues in a case to be decided. Binding authority,to which the doctrine of precedent does apply,includes decisions of higher courts of the same jurisdiction and decisions of the same court.

The doctrine of stare decisis closely relates to the concept of the holding of a case or ratio decidendi and whether or not a holding is narrowly or broadly cast in terms of the fact‐situation involved in the case.

Transforming Facts into Binding Legal Rules

The holding of a case or ratio decidendi can be further cast in the form of a legal rule.

Judges must in making decision take into account the facts of the case and then generalize from those facts as far as the statement of the court and the circumstances indicate is desirable. Facts permeate the structure of the common law and often accede themselves to the rank of legal rules.

How could a general statement of facts by a judge become a legal rule?Doesn't this mean“what it is”amounts to or counts as“what ought to be?”What is the alchemy in the process of normative transformation?Is judge alchemist?

Not just judges transform facts into legal rules. Other branches of the government perform this trick,too. One could also ask:Is the legislature e. g. ,the United States Congress,or a government agency,or a federal official,an alchemist of legislation essentially formulated on the basis of facts and happenings,past,present and projected?There is a simple answer to this question. Congress is authorized by the Constitution to make laws and the Department ofTransportation,for example,is to make rules under the enabling law. H. L. A. Hart offers a theoretical answer by crafting an innovative idea that every legal system has rules of recognition that validate what the law is. In the United States,by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,a valid discretionary act by a single federal administrative official is not only recognized as law,it even prevails over a conflicting provision enshrined in a state constitution.

Other theories have been advanced to justify the transformation of an“is”as an“ought. ”According to the popular progressive view,any effective power holders（socially allocated）can make law however it is based. Whether or not what is proposed or the“law”as projected is authoritative and effective is another question.

In Search of an Ideal Holding or Ratio Decidendi of a Case

The holding of a case must be determined from an analysis of the material facts,from the decisions,and from the reasoning ofthe opinion. Even this may be more difficult than would seem to be at least. It is often hard to know how far the process of abstraction should be continued.

There are some problems and difficulties in stating with precision the holding（ratio decidendi）of an appellate court—the core of the opinion that represents the propositions of law that will be binding on lower courts.

Factors compounding the formulation of ratio include:

First,each judge is free to enter a dissenting or different strand of reasoning for the decision.

Second,courts are not supposed to declare authoritative legal generalities in the abstract. Propositions of law must be connected and related to the facts of the dispute that judges are adjudicating,and the holding of a case can lonely be stated in term of its essential facts. But what facts are essential or most important is neither preordained nor obvious.

Third,what is more difficult is to decide how broad or how narrow are the propositions of law found in the opinion that can be thought of as necessary for the decision of the case on the basis of the facts found to be essential.

Fourth,the problem is further complicated by the tendency of American courts to write opinions at the considerable length,in which the main issues are revisited,with a variety ofpronouncements and the proffering ofdifferent lines of reasoning,outcome of which may appear to be much broader than others.

A factual example of possibilities runs as follows:

In a case in which a woman companion had poured most the lemonade liquid into a glass,drunk some of it and discovered decomposed remains of a snail at the bottom of a bottle of lemonade offered by her host.

A fact‐specific but intuitively ridiculous approach would formulate the proposition such manufacturers of lemonade in opaque bottles are liable to people who become ill after drinking the beverage and then discovering a decomposed snail in the bottle.

At the highest level of generality,one may postulate that all manufacturers of goods are liable to any person who is injured by defects in the product.

The holding may be further modified to limit its application to food and drink products or to consumers as a class. So the proposition may be refined to read that manufacturers are liable to consumers who are exposed to traps or hidden dangers,and where they are entirely free of negligence in failing to discover the defect.

Ratio decidendi is a proposition of law that decides the case in the light and in the context of the material facts. The ratio is the central core of the meaning of a case. It is the sharpest cutting edge of the case that only is blinding. The greater the number of facts in the ratio,the narrower its scope. Conversely the fewer or the higher the level of abstraction,the broader the reach of the ratio and the more fact situations it covers. The inclusive nature of such broader statement of the ratio would come close to resemble the general rules found in codes of the civilian family.

Doctrine of Stare Decisis in United States Law

The doctrine of stare decisis dictates that like cases should be decided today the same as they were decided in the past. However,the doctrine is not as vigorously applied in the United States as in England. In order to avoid an over‐differentiation of the law between states,some suppleness in the rule of precedent is desirable when facing the need for security and stability.

The United States Supreme Court and the supreme courts of the different states are not bound to observe their own decisions and may in fact operate a reversal of previously established judicial practice. In the operation of state courts,lawyers themselves tend to exert pressure to align the law of one state with the dominant current prevailing in other states. At the federal level,the Supreme Court sees the compelling importance and needs to adapt the Constitution to modern social thinking and economic necessities,as the Constitution can only be amended with very great difficulty. Many celebrated examples of how the United States Supreme Court had brought about fundamental changes to the law and about significant social and economic consequences and impacts were made through imaginative and novel interpretation of the Constitution and the technique of distinguishing previous decision. This is because the rule of precedent is a static and constraining factor instead of being an activist and liberating force. The mechanism of interstitial change in the common law through a case‐by‐case manner simply is not suitable for the instrumentalist demands of the modern age.

In fact there may only be a slight difference between the juridical recognition of this rule and the voluntary adhesion by judges to some rules or doctrines stated by their predecessors on account of arguments based on reason. The whole question is really much more a matter of legal psychology than of law. It may very much lie in the willingness or hesitation ofjudges to admit that distinctions may be drawn. Whether or not they consider themselves bound by an aging principle,whether they are indeed aware of the need that the law evolves or,whether they are to be guided by progressive or conservative ideas. And the fact that every shade of opinion can find supporting precedents in the extreme mass of published judicial reports is another important factor.

No case has a meaning by itself. What counts and gives you lead and sureness is the background of other cases in relation to which you must read the one at hand. The ratio is not fixed but a formula that is capable of adjustment according to the force of later development.

Exercises

Please choose the best answer to the following questions:

1. Consistent following of precedents contributes to predictability in future disputes.

A. Because of stare decisis,people will be in a better position to know the possible outcome of their cases.

B. Future cases,unexceptionally,will have to be decided according to previous cases.

C. Once a case has been decided,it will be faithfully followed in all future ones.

D. A case has to be consistent with the precedent,or the result will be unpredictable.

2. Facts permeate the structure of the common law and often accede themselves to the rank of legal rules.

A. All common law rules are fact‐specific.

B. All common law rules are promoted from far‐reaching facts.

C. All common law rules are stated in the form of stories filled with facts.

D. All common law rules are derived from the facts of specific cases.

3. Not just judges transform facts into legal rules；other branches of the government perform this trick,too.

A. Turning facts into legal rules is a game of dirty politics.

B. Deductive reasoning is not only used in judicial process,but also in political process.

C. The courts and administrative agencies generally follow the same procedures.

D. The courts have set examples for other branches of government to follow.

4. If it is a law that all manufacturers of goods are liable to any person who is injured by defects in the product,then _____

A. Apple will never be liable for any injury caused by iPhone since Apple is only a“designer”while all the parts are“manufactured”by other companies.

B. a person still has to show that the product that injured him is defective.

C. a manufacturer is always liable when its product is found to be defective.

D. a person injured by a defective product can go directly to the manufacturer for compensation without having to sue.

5. The doctrine of stare decisis dictates that like cases should be decided today the same as they were decided in the past.

A. The doctrine is like an old feudalistic shackle that alljudges would love to get rid of.

B. To decide a similar case as was decided before is required under the previous case.

C. A common law judge does not have the power or the right to question how a previous case was decided,but to follow it.

D. Once a legal rule is found to be the law,a judge is bound to adhere to it in similar future cases.

6. The doctrine of stare decisis is not as vigorously applied in the United States as in England.

A. Once a legal rule is established in England,it cannot be as easily overcome as in the United States.

B. The United States does not follow the English legal practice very vigorously.

C. The United States does not give too much weight to old cases decided many years ago,as England does.

D. The doctrine of stare decisis is not as vigorous in the United States as in England.

7. The Supreme Court sees the compelling importance and needs to adapt the Constitution to modern social thinking and economic necessities,as the Constitution can only be amended with very great difficulty.

A. As time changes,it is important and necessary that the Constitution be interpreted in modern ways because the constitutional text cannot be easily modified.

B. Since the constitutional text is very difficult to change,the Supreme Court is urged to modify the application of the Constitution.

C. The Supreme Court has compelled to change the way the Constitution is amended so as to better fit the social and economic needs of society.

D. Although the Supreme Court is not bound to change the Constitution,it may change its own prior decisions in order to better serve the societal needs.

8. There are some difficulties in stating with precision the holding（ratio decidendi）of an appellate court that represents the propositions of law binding on lower courts.

A. The law is less binding on lower courts if it is difficult to understand what it exactly is.

B. The scope of the holding of a decision may be difficult to determine,and if so,it would not carry much of a precedential value.

C. The precedential value of an appellate decision may not always be stated in plain terms,but it is still binding on lower courts.

D. If a legal rule is hard to express,it is hard to propose it to lower courts to follow.

9. The greater the number of facts in the ratio decidendi,the narrower its scope.

A. The more fact‐specific,the less far‐reaching of a decision.

B. The more you say,the more likely you will make mistakes.

C. Facts are irrelevant to abstraction of legal rules,and can weigh down the value of a decision.

D. Legal rules derived from simple fact stories are generally more powerful.

10. Lawyers tend to exert pressure to align the law of one state with the dominant current prevailing in other states.

A. Lawyers try to influence the court by putting pressure on it so as to change the state law in line with most other states.

B. Lawyers are more likely to push their ideas about law in their home states.

C. Lawyers will be able to change the law of a state if they get support from greater authorities such as the president of the United States.

D. It is mostly due to the efforts of lawyers to move the legislature for a change of the law. ej1PcM+AfEWTZMFrHSTIGnw59PM9ac4vvAaYgd9gP2VHBd/9t+8tM/yw5NVRSI0A