Rupert Cross. Precedent in English Law. Oxford University Press, 1968. Second edition. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
A Reduction-Graph Model of Ratio Decidendi - Branting (Correct)
....was proposed by Eugene Wambaugh: if the deciding court could have believed the negation of the proposition without changing the outcome of the case, the proposition is dictum rather than ratio [Wam94] 2. A unique proposition of law without which the case must have been decided otherwise [Cro79] can seldom be determined. Instead, a gradation of propositions ranging in abstraction from the specific facts of the case to abstract rules can satisfy this condition. Rupert Cross in Precedent in English Law [Cro79] illustrated this point with the example of Donoghue v. Stevenson, 2 a case ....
....proposition of law without which the case must have been decided otherwise [Cro79] can seldom be determined. Instead, a gradation of propositions ranging in abstraction from the specific facts of the case to abstract rules can satisfy this condition. Rupert Cross in Precedent in English Law [Cro79] illustrated this point with the example of Donoghue v. Stevenson, 2 a case holding the manufacturer of a bottle of ginger beer containing a decomposed snail liable to the ultimate consumer. Lord Atkin s opinion contained two propositions of law justifying the decision. The first was very ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
R. Cross. Precedent in English Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, third edition, 1979.
Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game - Prakken, Sartor (1998) (9 citations) (Correct)
....Capital and Mobility programme. 2 Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor only computer applications, but also models and insights relevant for the theoretical understanding of judge made law, which parallel the investigations of legal theory (e.g. MacCormick, 1978; Goldstein, 1987; Raz, 1989 and Cross Harris, 1991). In particular, it has focused on the dialectical process of citing and comparing cases, and on the various heuristics of case based reasoning. Another development in AI Law is logical research on nonmonotonic, or defeasible legal reasoning (e.g. Sartor, 1992; Prakken, 1993; Gordon, 1995; ....
....seems to do justice in the case under consideration . Note that the hierarchical and the recency criterion are also reflected by the well known common law doctrine of (implied) overruling, when the subsequent Court has such a power; cf. for English law, R. v. Porter [1949] 2KB 128 at 132, cited by Cross Harris (1991, pp. 132 ff. See for temporal considerations in comparing precedents also Berman Hafner (1995) In conclusion, ideally formal and computational models of case based reasoning should allow for any possible criterion for choosing between conflicting precedents. Nevertheless, similarity is ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Cross, R. & Harris, J.W. 1991. Precedent in English Law, 4th edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi - Branting (1994) (5 citations) (Correct)
....of the case to abstract rules can satisfy this condition. A widespread but naive view of ratio decidendi is that the ratio decidendi of a precedent consists of a single, unique proposition of law without which the case must have been decided otherwise. Rupert Cross in Precedent in English Law [Cross, 1979] illustrated the untenability of this view with the example of Donoghue v. Stevenson, 4 a case holding the manufacturer of a bottle of ginger beer containing a decomposed snail liable to the ultimate consumer. Lord Atkin s opinion contained two propositions of law justifying the decision. The ....
....of precedents specific facts include: ffl [I]t is the facts, and not the general rules of law found in precedents . which serve as the foundation of the decisional process. Cueto Rua, 1981] at 56. ffl Judgements must be read in light of the facts of the case in which they are delivered. [Cross, 1979] at 44. ffl It is clear that the most important part of a representation for cases is the representation of the facts and the outcome. Gardner, 1987] at 47. Gardner quotes with approval Corbin s admonition that cases should be studied not so much for their doctrinal statements as for . ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Cross, R. (1979). Precedent in English Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, third edition.
Precedent, Deontic Logic, and Inheritance - Horty (1999) (Correct)
No context found.
Rupert Cross. Precedent in English Law. Oxford University Press, 1968. Second edition.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC