BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, September 22, 2022

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE course will review best strategies for changing how lawyers should argue their cases after recent U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit Court decisions applying or modifying the doctrine of stare decisis. The panel will discuss new ways of analyzing, applying, and refining precedent, how U.S. Circuit Courts have applied their own and SCOTUS precedent, and how well trial courts follow precedent. The program will also examine what stare decisis is not and controversy and confusion concerning whether recent case law departs from or refines the principle.

Faculty

Mark Cooney
Professor
Western Michigan University Cooley Law School

Prof. Cooney has taught Research & Writing and Advocacy for 16 years. Before teaching, he spent 10 years in private practice with civil-litigation firms, specializing in civil appeals. He has successfully briefed and argued appeals in the Michigan Supreme Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He’s a past chair of the Michigan State Bar's Appellate Practice Section, was a founding board member of the Michigan Supreme Court Historical Society’s Advocates Guild, and is a frequent speaker and moderator at programs on legal writing and appellate practice. Prof. Cooney is Editor-in-Chief of The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing.   

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Benjamin G. Shatz
Partner & Certified Appellate Specialist
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP

Mr. Shatz Co-Chairs Manatt's Appellate Practice Group. He has briefed hundreds of civil appeals, writs, and petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals, California Supreme Court, and California Courts of Appeal, covering a multitude of areas of law. He is a frequent lecturer and author, published in California Litigation, California Lawyer, Los Angeles Lawyer, Inside Counsel, The Daily Journal, The Recorder, For the Defense, California Defender, CEB Civil Litigator Reporter, and many other legal publications. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

How the Supreme Court decides if or when to abrogate its precedent can help litigants and appellate lawyers devise case strategies to identify and adequately preserve for appeal possible challenges to statutory and constitutional interpretations that no longer seem valid or appropriate.

Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow cases with similar scenarios and facts when deciding the current one. A true "case in point" is rare, so courts usually have some leeway in applying precedent. Whether a subsequent decision departs from prior precedent can be a nuanced question.

More frequently than ever, judges and attorneys are debating whether, as Louis Brandeis wrote, it is more important for the law to be settled than be settled right or whether precedent must be overruled promptly if it is shown to be "demonstrably erroneous" as in Brown v. Board of Education. Some see recent developments as a natural refinement of a problematic concept, while others suggest that stare decisis is in peril.

Listen as this exceptional panel discusses the past, current, and possible future of the stare decisis doctrine plus practical applications for litigators and appellate lawyers.

Outline

  1. History of stare decisis
  2. Critical cases where SCOTUS reversed itself and why
  3. Current approaches to stare decisis
  4. Strategies for possible challenges to both statutory and constitutional interpretations

Benefits

The panel will review these and other pivotal questions:

  • What are the different and emerging views regarding when the Supreme Court should reverse course?
  • Can cases where the Court reverses prior opinion be categorized meaningfully?
  • Are reports of the death of stare decisis greatly exaggerated or cause for concern?