Jurisprudence constante: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Legal doctrine}} |
|||
{{italic title}}'''''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 [[legal case|cases]]. This doctrine is recognized in ''most'' [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] [[jurisdiction]]s, in the [[Louisiana law|civil law of Louisiana]], for example. |
|||
{{italic title}} |
|||
'''''{{lang|fr|Jurisprudence constante}}''''' ([[French language|French]] for "stable jurisprudence", or literally, "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.<ref>For instance, in the case of French administrative law, see CE, July 13th 2016, ''[http://www.conseil-etat.fr/Decisions-Avis-Publications/Decisions/Selection-des-decisions-faisant-l-objet-d-une-communication-particuliere/CE-13-juillet-2016-departement-de-la-Seine-Saint-Denis Département de la Seine-Saint-Denis]'', |
|||
N° 388317, §5 (in French).</ref> This doctrine is recognized in most [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] [[jurisdiction (area)|jurisdiction]]s as well as in certain mixed jurisdictions, e.g., [[law of Louisiana|Louisiana]]. |
|||
The rule of law applied in the '' |
The rule of law applied in the ''{{lang|fr|jurisprudence constante}}'' directly compares with ''{{lang|la|[[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 ''{{lang|la|stare decisis}}''; however, "a |
||
| ⚫ | series of [[case law|adjudicated cases]], all in accord, form the basis for ''{{lang|fr|jurisprudence constante}}''."<ref>{{cite court|litigants = Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr. v. Caddo-Shreveport Sales & Use Tax Comm'n.|vol = 903|reporter = So.2d|opinion = 1071|pinpoint = at n.17|court = La.|date = 2005|url=http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2005/04c0473.opn.pdf}} (Opinion no. 2004-C-0473)</ref> Moreover, the [[Louisiana Circuit Courts of Appeal|Louisiana Court of Appeal]] has explicitly noted that within Louisiana, ''{{lang|fr|jurisprudence constante}}'' is merely a secondary [[source of law]], which cannot be authoritative and does not rise to the level of the source of law, which is legislation. <ref>{{cite court |litigants = Royal v. Cook |vol=984 |reporter=So.2d|opinion=156 |court = La. Ct. App. |date = 2008 }}</ref> Judicial decisions are not intended to be an authoritative source of law, and, thus, the civilian tradition does not recognize the doctrine of stare decisis. Id. |
||
series of [[case law|adjudicated cases]], all in accord, form the basis for ''jurisprudence constante''." <ref>{{cite court |
|||
|litigants = Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr. v. Caddo-Shreveport Sales & Use Tax Comm'n. |
|||
|vol = 903 |
|||
|reporter = So.2d |
|||
|opinion = 1071 |
|||
|pinpoint = at n.17 |
|||
|court = La. |
|||
|date = 2005 |
|||
| ⚫ | |url=http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2005/04c0473.opn.pdf |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
{{Portal|Law}} |
|||
*[[Case law]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
*[[Civil law (legal system)]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
*''[[stare decisis]]'' |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
| Line 24: | Line 17: | ||
[[Category:Civil law (legal system)]] |
[[Category:Civil law (legal system)]] |
||
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]] |
[[Category:Legal doctrines and principles]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Civil law legal terminology]] |
||
[[Category:Judicial legal terminology]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 21:19, 31 December 2023
Jurisprudence constante (French for "stable jurisprudence", or literally, "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.[1] 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."[2] Moreover, the Louisiana Court of Appeal has explicitly noted that within Louisiana, jurisprudence constante is merely a secondary source of law, which cannot be authoritative and does not rise to the level of the source of law, which is legislation. [3] Judicial decisions are not intended to be an authoritative source of law, and, thus, the civilian tradition does not recognize the doctrine of stare decisis. Id.
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ For instance, in the case of French administrative law, see CE, July 13th 2016, Département de la Seine-Saint-Denis, N° 388317, §5 (in French).
- ^ 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. |