Stare Decisis
Stare decisis is termed as a doctrine in the legal system where the court follows past cases to determine the current ones(Anderlini, Felli, & Riboni, 2014) . It ensures that the same procedure is followed when determining a certain issue if it has the same features as a previous one. This means that the court will deliberate in some cases easier and faster as compared to those without a precedent(Tushnet, 2008) . Stare decisis also emphasize the need to make a fair judgment for future reference. The name is derived from a Latin meaning of ‘standing by what was previously decided”.
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A Inc. (2005)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A Inc. (2005) was a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a precedent set by Agins v. City of Tiburon of 1980(Nelson, 2006) . According to the prior case, the judges held that the power of deciding whether government regulation or a zoning ordinance will be preferred if such actions advance the interests of the country. However, this was seen as contravening the Constitution which provided a liberal environment to businesses and individuals (Murrill, 2018) . The court argued that ordinance was to consider greatly the interests of the landowner thus limiting the powers the state had over it (Murrill, 2018) . According to the Fifth Amendment in the constitution, the government can only acquire a private property if there is fair compensation to the original owner(Byrne, 2007) . Too much regulation on one’s ownership was also seen as an illegal acquisition by the state. The ruling also allowed an individual to fully utilize his land for economic benefits(Radford, 2006) . Therefore, the government’s interference with the private land’s use was seen as going against the owner’s aim. The prior ruling had given the state more powers to dictate on such matters(Eagle, 2007) . The court also found that the government was trying to limit the number of urban centers the country would have thus coming up with one house per acre rule.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Anderlini, L., Felli, L., & Riboni, A. (2014). Why stare decisis? Review of Economic Dynamics . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2014.02.001
Byrne, J. P. (2007). Due process land use claims after Lingle. Ecology Law Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38MK0P
Eagle, S. J. (2007). Property Tests, Due Process Tests and Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence. Brigham Young University Law Review .
Murrill, B. J. (2018). The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent. Congressional Reserve Services .
Nelson, S. B. (2006). Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. Harvard Environmental Law Review .
Radford, R. S. (2006). Just a flesh wound? the impact of Lingle v. Chevron on regulatory takings law. Urban Lawyer . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.868713
Tushnet, M. (2008). Legislative and executive stare decisis. Notre Dame Law Review .
