Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
University of Baltimore Symposium Report: Debut of “The Matthew Fogg Symposia On The Vitality Of Stare Decisis In America”
(2012)
  • Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal
Abstract
On the first of each two day symposium of the Fogg symposia, lawyers representing NGOs in the civil rights, judicial reform, and whistleblower advocacy fields are to share relevant work of featured legal scholars in lay terms; relate the underlying principles to real life cases; and propose appropriate reform efforts. Four (4) of the scholars spend the next day relating their featured articles to views on the vitality of stare decisis. Specifically, the combined panels of public interest attorneys and law professors consider whether compliance with the doctrine is reasonably assured in America given the: 1. considerable discretion vested in federal trial judges through the “plausibility pleading” requirements of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal; 2. dynamics of judicial self-discipline; and 3. impediments to effectively challenging apparent judicial motives and/or bias, including limitations on lawyer free speech rights. In other words, “Can America’s administration of justice remain adequately stable, predictable, efficient, and welfare-enhancing given the foregoing factors?”
Keywords
  • stare decisis,
  • rule of law,
  • university of baltimore,
  • zena d. crenshaw-logal,
  • judicial independence,
  • judicial accountability,
  • judicial reform,
  • iqbal,
  • plausibility pleading,
  • free speech,
  • judicial discipline,
  • doctrine of precedent
Publication Date
Spring January 31, 2012
Comments
This report is being adapted for publication as a nonfiction book as an academic book publisher has agreed to publish it in paperback and electronic form.
Citation Information
Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal. "University of Baltimore Symposium Report: Debut of “The Matthew Fogg Symposia On The Vitality Of Stare Decisis In America”" (2012)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/zena_crenshaw-logal/6/