Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=904362
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (241)



 


 



Stare Decisis and Due Process


Amy Coney Barrett


Notre Dame Law School


University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 74, p. 1011, 2003

Abstract:     
In this Article, I argue that the preclusive effect of precedent raises due-process concerns, and, on occasion, slides into unconstitutionality. The Due Process Clause requires that a court give a person notice and an opportunity for a hearing before depriving her of life, liberty or property. Because of this requirement, courts have held in the context of issue preclusion that as a general rule, judicial determinations can bind only parties. The preclusion literature asserts that this parties only requirement does not apply to stare decisis because stare decisis, in contrast to issue preclusion, is a flexible doctrine. Yet stare decisis often functions inflexibly in the federal courts, particularly in the courts of appeals. I claim that in its rigid application - when it effectively forecloses a litigant from meaningfully urging error - correction - stare decisis unconstitutionally deprives a litigant of the right to a hearing on the merits of her claims. To avoid the due-process problem, I suggest that courts render stare decisis more flexible; specifically, I propose that courts remove rules - like, for example, the rule that one appellate panel cannot overrule another - that create nearly insurmountable barriers to error - correction.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 66

Keywords: stare decisis, precedent, preclusion, due process, estoppel

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: May 25, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Barrett, Amy Coney, Stare Decisis and Due Process. University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 74, p. 1011, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=904362

Contact Information

Amy Coney Barrett (Contact Author)
Notre Dame Law School ( email )
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 2,090
Downloads: 225
Download Rank: 80,216
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  241

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.406 seconds