Palavras-chave: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.
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
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O’BRIEN, David M. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s unpublished opinion in Brow v. Board: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
WARREN, Samuel; BRANDEIS, Louis D. The right of privacy. Harvard Law Review, v. 4, n. 5,
p. 193-220, Dec. 15, 1890.
Para acesso ao conteúdo do periódico, favor entrar em contato com:
0800 704 3737