Case Law Quotes

One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, today is doctrine.

I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office, and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent. So, someone who devotes that much time to writing a book on precedent, I think, understands how important a principle that is in our judicial system.

Judges certainly have political connections and strong political views, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above politics when they hear cases. We expect them to, and the law presumes they do.

When some states introduced mandatory smallpox vaccinations during the epidemic of 1898-1903, Americans resisted by the thousands. The ensuing battles produced medical conventions and case law that altered the balance between government authority and medical practice, in favor of federal control.

The law is always in transition.

Our lady the Common Law is a very wise old lady though she still has something to learn in telling what she knows.

I'm a common law judge. I believe in deciding every case on its facts, not on a legal philosophy. And I believe in deciding each case in the most limited way possible, because common law judges have a firm belief that the best development of the law is the one that lets society show you the next step, and that next step is in the new facts that each case presents.

The role of the judge is simply to decide cases.

Courts cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because they would prefer not to.

My job is to interpret the law based on how the legislature and the court has done it and then, of course, to use our system of justice to develop some new legal tools and new concepts.

Great cases like hard cases make bad law.

Law school! A man must read law in the court house.

I'm trying to read more dead people because I keep having to read stuff for juries and so forth.

People expect that the law will be what the Supreme Court told them what the law was going to be.

What is today supported by precedents will hereafter become a precedent.

Bad facts make bad law.

The obligation of any judge is to decide the case before the court, and the nature of the issue presented will largely determine the appropriate scope of the principle on which its decision should rest.

One precedent creates another and they soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was a fact, today is doctrine.

They're all focusing on how John Roberts is going to decide Roe v. Wade. That isn't even the right question. I don't even know of a case in the (court) system that addresses it.

When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case.

Were I confirmed as a judge, I would decide cases according to the rule of law beginning to end.

Law is not a science, but is essentially empirical.

It would then be most admirably adapted to the purposes of justice, if laws properly enacted were, as far as circumstances admitted, of themselves to mark out all cases, and to abandon as few as possible to the discretion of the judge.

I have an affinity for the law. I like looking at the small type on contracts, and if I could have afforded law school, I probably would have gone.

It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.