article thumbnail

Doctrinal “dinosaur” or stare decisis? Justices wrestle with patent-law precedent.

SCOTUSBlog

Morgan Ratner argued for the federal government, which filed its own friend-of-the-court brief but supported neither party. The justices pressed Ratner on where the government’s version of the doctrine came from. As Justice Neil Gorsuch put it, “No court’s ever applied the version of estoppel that you’re proposing now.”

article thumbnail

Animal rights and the First Amendment, due process and a confession of error

SCOTUSBlog

Some older Supreme Court decisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. The government has filed a confession of error, agreeing the offense does not qualify.

Statute 104
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

The Nigerian Court of Appeal declines to enforce a Commonwealth of Virginia (in USA) Choice of Court Agreement

Conflict of Laws

Its argument, inter alia , was that by virtue of Article 12 and 13 of their agreement, the Nigerian court had no jurisdiction in this case. GOVERNING LAW: The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA without regard to the principle of conflicts of any jurisdiction.”.

Court 52
article thumbnail

A call for the wider study of Private International Law in Africa: A Review of Private International Law In Nigeria

Conflict of Laws

Successive Nigerian governments across all tiers have made the attraction of foreign investments a cardinal part of their economic policies and have accordingly made deliberate efforts and committed abundant resources to attract foreign investments into Nigeria. [1]

Laws 52
article thumbnail

We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to

SCOTUSBlog

Against stare decisis. Many amici focus on the principle of stare decisis – and urge the court not to follow it in this case. They say Roe and Casey are not worthy of the deference that the court typically affords to its prior decisions. Legislative authority. A brief from the Susan B.

article thumbnail

How the Supreme Court Laid the Foundations for ‘Racialized Policing’

The Crime Report

I think people are aware of high-profile issues… what the Supreme Court does on abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, but my guess is that people don’t realize that there has been no Supreme Court decision since 1986, 35 years ago, about eyewitness identification. Or does stare decisis make it stuck as a precedent?

Court 122