Jurisprudence constante: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m rename cat per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 2, replaced: Category:Legal terms → Category:Legal terminology using AWB |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{italic title}}'''''{{lang|fr|Jurisprudence constante}}''''' ([[French language|French]] for "constant jurisprudence") is a [[legal doctrine]] according to which a long series of previous decisions applying a particular legal principle or [[rule of law|rule]] is highly [[Precedent# |
{{italic title}}'''''{{lang|fr|Jurisprudence constante}}''''' ([[French language|French]] for "constant jurisprudence") is a [[legal doctrine]] according to which a long series of previous decisions applying a particular legal principle or [[rule of law|rule]] is highly [[Precedent#Persuasive precedent|persuasive]] but not controlling in subsequent [[legal case|cases]] dealing with similar or identical issues of law. This doctrine is recognized in ''most'' [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] [[jurisdiction]]s as well as in certain mixed jurisdictions, e.g. [[Louisiana law|Louisiana]]. |
||
The rule of law applied in the ''jurisprudence constante'' directly compares with ''[[stare decisis]]''. But the [[Louisiana Supreme Court]] notes the principal difference between the two legal doctrines: a single [[legal opinion|court decision]] can provide sufficient foundation for ''stare decisis'', however, "a |
The rule of law applied in the ''jurisprudence constante'' directly compares with ''[[stare decisis]]''. But the [[Louisiana Supreme Court]] notes the principal difference between the two legal doctrines: a single [[legal opinion|court decision]] can provide sufficient foundation for ''stare decisis'', however, "a |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
[[Category:Civil law (legal system)]] |
[[Category:Civil law (legal system)]] |
||
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]] |
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]] |
||
[[Category:Legal |
[[Category:Legal terminology]] |
||
Revision as of 19:01, 25 September 2016
Jurisprudence constante (French for "constant jurisprudence") is a legal doctrine according to which a long series of previous decisions applying a particular legal principle or rule is highly persuasive but not controlling in subsequent cases dealing with similar or identical issues of law. This doctrine is recognized in most civil law jurisdictions as well as in certain mixed jurisdictions, e.g. Louisiana.
The rule of law applied in the jurisprudence constante directly compares with stare decisis. But the Louisiana Supreme Court notes the principal difference between the two legal doctrines: a single court decision can provide sufficient foundation for stare decisis, however, "a series of adjudicated cases, all in accord, form the basis for jurisprudence constante."[1] Moreover, the Louisiana Court of Appeals has explicitly noted that jurisprudence constante is merely a secondary source of law, which cannot be authoritative and does not rise to the level of stare decisis.[2]
See also
References
- ^ Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr. v. Caddo-Shreveport Sales & Use Tax Comm'n., 903 So.2d 1071, at n.17 (La. 2005). (Opinion no. 2004-C-0473)
- ^ Royal v. Cook,, 984 So.2d 156 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
 | This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |