Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKopf, Richard G.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T22:03:40Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T22:03:40Z
dc.date.issued2002en_US
dc.identifier.citation35 Creighton L. Rev. 11 (2001-2002)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40391
dc.description.abstractFIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|Like Elmer Dundy, the author of United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, I have been privileged to serve as a federal judge in Nebraska. Unremarkably, or so I thought until recently, we try as best we can to adhere to the commonly accepted norm that lower court judges must follow and fairly apply analogous opinions of higher court judges. This doctrine, called "precedent" or "stare decisis," requires the lower court judge to apply the higher court judge's prior opinion in a similar case, even if the lower court judge passionately disagrees with the result or the reasoning. In academic circles, this notion is called "vertical" precedent.|In this essay, I explore vertical precedent from the viewpoint of a trial judge who must actually decide a difficult case like one involving partial-birth abortion. In so doing, I cast a critical eye on a law review article written by Steven Grasz which refers to the Standing Bear opinion as a metaphor for the proper use of precedent in the context of abortion litigation. I conclude that Mr. Grasz proposes a strain of judicial activism that he ought to decry...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleEssay on Precedent, Standing Bear, Partial-Birth Abortion and Word Games - A Response to Steve Grasz and other Conservatives, Anen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume35en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note2001-2002en_US
dc.description.pages11en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record