Jurisprudence constante: Difference between revisions
Alphachimera (talk | contribs) added info, jurisprudence constante not stare decisis in Louisiana |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|court = La. |
|court = La. |
||
|date = 2005 |
|date = 2005 |
||
|url=http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2005/04c0473.opn.pdf }}</ref> 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.'' <ref>{{cite court |litigants = ''Royal v. Cook'', 984 So. 2d 156 |court = La. Ct. App. |date = 2008 }}</ref> |
|||
|url=http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2005/04c0473.opn.pdf }}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 14:36, 20 July 2010
Jurisprudence constante is a legal doctrine according to which a long series of previous decisions applying a particular rule of law is very important and may be determinative in subsequent cases. This doctrine is recognized in most civil law jurisdictions, in the civil law of Louisiana, for example.
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, 2004-C-0473, at n.17 (La. 2005).
- ^ '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. |