• David M. O’Brien University of Virginia
  • Marco Félix Jobim Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul



Precedent, Supreme Court, Overturn


Precedent is and remains central to common law, but is neither fixed in stone, a mechanical rule to follow, nor fundamentally “binding.” In interesting yet often neglected ways, precedents may
not only be expressly but implicitly overruled, abandoned or circumvented (without saying so), so as to render them no longer “good law”, or undercut by simply whittling them down to size, only then to subsequently reaffirm them.

Biografia do Autor

David M. O’Brien, University of Virginia

Ph.D. University of California (Santa Barbara). Leone Reaves and George W. Spicer
Professor, (University of Virginia – Charlottesville - EUA). Has been a Judicial Fellow
and Research Associate at the Supreme Court of the U.S., held Fulbright Teaching
and Research Awards at Oxford University, England (1987-1988), the University of
Bologna, Italy (1999), and in Japan (Summers, 1993 and 1994), and was a Visiting
Fellow at the Russell Sage Foundation in New York (1981-1982), and Visiting Professor
at Institut d’Etudes Politique Universite Lumiere-Lyon 2 (2006), as well as Fulbright
Specialist Lecturer on Constitutional Law and Politics at Pontificia Universidade Católica
do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (2017), and a Fudan Senior Fellow -2017
and 2018 (Summers) at Fudan University Law School, Shanghai, China. He served as a
commissioner on the U.S.–Japan Conference on Cultural and Educational Exchange and
the Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission.

Marco Félix Jobim, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul

Adjunct Professor at PUCRS (Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul). Master,
Doctor and Post-doctorate in Law. Laywer.


AASENG, Nathan. You are the Supreme Court Justice. Minneapolis: The Oliver Press, 1994.
BAUM, Lawrence. Ideology in the Supreme Court. New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
BLACKSTONE, William. Commentaries on the English Common Law. v. 1-4. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1776.
CROSS, Rupert; HARRIS, J. W. Harris. El precedente en el Derecho inglés. Traducción de Mª
Angélica Pulido. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2012.
FAUX, Marian. Roe v. Wade: the untold story of the landmark Supreme Court Decision that
made abortion legal. New York: Cooper Square Press, 2001.
GERHARDT, Michael J. The power of precedent. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
GREENBERG, Ellen. Supreme Court explained. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997.
HANSFOR, Thomas G.; SPRIGGS II, James F. The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme
Court. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.
HARTMAN, Gary; MERSKY, Roy M.; TATE, Cindy L. Landmark Supreme Court cases: the most
influential decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Facts on File, 2004.
HITCHCOCK, Susan Tyler. Roe v. Wade: protecting a woman’s right to choose. New York:
Chelsea House, 2007.
MCNEESE, Tim. Brown v. Board of Education: integrating America’s schools. New York:
Chelsea House, 2007.
MCNEESE, Tim. Plessy v. Ferguson: separate but equal. New York: Chelsea House, 2007.
O’BRIEN, David M. Constitutional law and politics: civil rights and civil liberties. 10. ed. New
York: W. W. Norton, 2017.
O’BRIEN, David M. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s unpublished opinion in Brow v. Board:
conflict, compromise, and Constitutional Interpretation. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press
of Kansas, 2017.
SCHAUER, Frederick. Thinking like a lawyer: a new introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge,
Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press, 2009.
SHAPIRO, Stephen M.; GELLER, Kenneth S.; BISHOP, Timothy S.; HARTNETT, Edward A.;
HIMMELFARB, Dan. Supreme Court practice. 10. ed. Arlington: Bloomberg BNA, 2013.
VAN METER, Larry A. Miranda v. Arizona: the rights of the accused. New York: Chelsea
House, 2007.
WARREN, Samuel; BRANDEIS, Louis D. The right of privacy. Harvard Law Review, v. 4, n. 5,
p. 193-220, Dec. 15, 1890.




Como Citar

O’Brien, D. M., & Jobim, M. F. (2019). Precedent. Revista Brasileira De Direitos Fundamentais & Justiça, 12(38), 35–44.