69:", where the "next close case comes up and the precedent is applied: same thing, same thumb on the scale, same decision". Calabresi argued that this process ultimately leads to the ongoing expansion of doctrine that was originally established only on a narrow basis. Additionally, Ward Farnsworth has argued that judges often resolve close cases "according to beliefs the judges bring to the case that don’t owe much to law".
33:
Although some scholars have suggested that "a close case is in the eye of the beholder", other scholars have attempted to articulate specific criteria for identifying close cases. Maureen Armoor, for example, defines close cases as "the articulable outer limit of judicial discretion that most closely
20:
is generally defined as a ruling that could conceivably be decided in more than one way. Various scholars have attempted to articulate criteria for identifying close cases, and commentators have observed that reliance upon
56:
Northwestern
University law professor John E. Coons observed that "nder a system of winner-take-all the one-sided result reached upon principle in the close case must continue to trouble the conscience of the law". Judge
42:, has suggested that close cases could be defined as either "cases close enough to provoke dissent" or cases that "are flexible enough to comfortably admit of more than one reading". Likewise, a 1980 comment in the
303:
34:
approximates the phenomenological experience of a sitting judge, in particular the dimension of discretion called into play when a judge is uncertain about an outcome".
39:
317:
290:
147:
268:
336:
225:
111:
369:
359:
299:
78:
44:
364:
285:
83:
62:
58:
35:
48:
defined close cases as appellate decisions that generated multiple dissenting opinions.
66:
353:
337:
The Role of Law in Close Cases: Some
Evidence from the Federal Courts of Appeals
226:
The Role of Law in Close Cases: Some
Evidence from the Federal Courts of Appeals
112:
The Role of Law in Close Cases: Some
Evidence from the Federal Courts of Appeals
25:
established in close cases leads to the gradual expansion of legal doctrines.
208:
Rethinking
Judicial Discretion: Sanctions and the Conundrum of the Close Case
191:
Rethinking
Judicial Discretion: Sanctions and the Conundrum of the Close Case
103:
Rethinking
Judicial Discretion: Sanctions and the Conundrum of the Close Case
22:
257:
1045, 1064–67 (1986) (critiquing the methodology of the
Stanford study).
251:
The
Assignment of Temporary Justices in the California Supreme Court
155:
111, 112 (2003) (characterizing this process as a "slippery slope").
269:
Approaches to Court
Imposed Compromise-The Uses of Doubt and Reason
249:
433, 437 (1980); see also Stephen R. Barnett; Daniel L. Rubinfeld,
243:
The Selection of Interim Justices in California: An Empirical Study
183:
The Selection of Interim Justices in California: An Empirical Study
130:
The Selection of Interim Justices in California: An Empirical Study
166:
A Proposal for the Operation of Section 534 with Section 535
304:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
306:described this process as "he hydraulic effect").
8:
298:111, 112 (2003) (noting that Chief Judge
94:
164:Frank E. Jr. Watkins; Daniel G. Kyle,
7:
65:, noted that close cases create a "
109:493, 496 (1997); Ward Farnsworth,
14:
189:433, 437 (1980); Maureen Armoor,
40:University of Texas School of Law
1:
323:Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
296:Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
153:Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y
101:See, e.g., Maureen Armoor,
52:Consequences of close cases
386:
233:1083, 1088, 1095 (2006).
29:Identifying close cases
318:The Exclusionary Rule
291:The Exclusionary Rule
148:The Exclusionary Rule
300:John M. Walker, Jr.
79:Judicial discretion
61:, a former dean of
45:Stanford Law Review
344:1083, 1095 (2006).
119:1083, 1095 (2006).
334:Ward Farnsworth,
315:Guido Calabresi,
223:Ward Farnsworth,
145:Guido Calabresi,
377:
345:
343:
332:
326:
325:111, 112 (2003).
324:
313:
307:
297:
283:
277:
276:750, 751 (1963).
275:
264:
258:
256:
248:
240:
234:
232:
221:
215:
214:493, 496 (1997).
213:
206:Maureen Armoor,
204:
198:
197:493, 496 (1997).
196:
188:
179:
173:
172:240, 248 (1974).
171:
162:
156:
154:
143:
137:
136:433, 437 (1980).
135:
126:
120:
118:
108:
99:
385:
384:
380:
379:
378:
376:
375:
374:
370:Legal procedure
350:
349:
348:
341:
333:
329:
322:
314:
310:
295:
286:Guido Calabresi
284:
280:
273:
266:John E. Coons,
265:
261:
254:
246:
241:
237:
230:
222:
218:
211:
205:
201:
194:
186:
180:
176:
169:
163:
159:
152:
144:
140:
133:
127:
123:
116:
106:
100:
96:
92:
84:Scope of review
75:
63:Yale Law School
59:Guido Calabresi
54:
36:Ward Farnsworth
31:
12:
11:
5:
383:
381:
373:
372:
367:
362:
352:
351:
347:
346:
327:
308:
278:
274:Nw. U. L. Rev.
259:
235:
216:
212:S.M.U. L. Rev.
199:
195:S.M.U. L. Rev.
174:
157:
138:
121:
107:S.M.U. L. Rev.
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
81:
74:
71:
67:slippery slope
53:
50:
38:, dean of the
30:
27:
16:In the law, a
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
382:
371:
368:
366:
363:
361:
358:
357:
355:
339:
338:
331:
328:
320:
319:
312:
309:
305:
301:
293:
292:
287:
282:
279:
271:
270:
263:
260:
252:
247:Stan. L. Rev.
244:
239:
236:
228:
227:
220:
217:
209:
203:
200:
192:
187:Stan. L. Rev.
184:
178:
175:
167:
161:
158:
150:
149:
142:
139:
134:Stan. L. Rev.
131:
125:
122:
114:
113:
104:
98:
95:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
72:
70:
68:
64:
60:
51:
49:
47:
46:
41:
37:
28:
26:
24:
19:
342:B.U. L. Rev.
335:
330:
316:
311:
289:
281:
267:
262:
250:
242:
238:
231:B.U. L. Rev.
224:
219:
207:
202:
190:
182:
177:
165:
160:
146:
141:
129:
124:
117:B.U. L. Rev.
110:
102:
97:
55:
43:
32:
17:
15:
360:Judiciaries
181:See, e.g.,
128:See, e.g.,
354:Categories
255:Pac. L. J.
90:References
18:close case
23:precedent
365:Lawsuits
73:See also
302:of the
340:, 86
321:, 26
294:, 26
272:, 58
253:, 17
245:, 32
229:, 86
210:, 50
193:, 50
185:, 32
170:Taxes
168:, 52
151:, 26
132:, 32
115:, 86
105:, 50
356::
288:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.