Why must inferior courts obey superior court precedents¶
Caminker, E. H. (1994). Why must inferior courts obey superior court precedents. Stanford Law Review, 46(4), 817-873.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Precedent (Stare Decisis)
- Common-law jurisdictions (core domain): UK, US, Canada, Australia, India, and other common-law systems rely on stare decisis — higher courts bind lower courts; horizontal precedent typically presumptively binding but overruleable, a vertical-binding asymmetry Caminker (1994) analyzes in his canonical treatment of why inferior courts must obey superior courts.
This sourceCanonical doctrinal treatment of vertical stare decisis: analyzes the institutional rationales for which lower courts are bound by higher-court decisions and contrasts vertical with horizontal binding.
- Common-law jurisdictions (core domain): UK, US, Canada, Australia, India, and other common-law systems rely on stare decisis — higher courts bind lower courts; horizontal precedent typically presumptively binding but overruleable, a vertical-binding asymmetry Caminker (1994) analyzes in his canonical treatment of why inferior courts must obey superior courts.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:2183836f6766 · see in the full table