The Origin and Effect of the Nisi Prius Reports.
For some seventy years, rulings made by judges sitting at nisi prius were regularly reported, despite those reports being held in low esteem by the legal profession and such rulings being regarded as of little value as precedents. This article considers why those rulings, at least on matters of subs...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Legal History Vol. 45; no. 3; pp. 239 - 272 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Dec2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=180765131&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 180765131 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01440365 7JG jtl: Journal of Legal History issn: 01440365 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2024 vid: 45 iid: 3 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 180765131 10.1080/01440365.2024.2324395 ppf: 239 ppct: 33 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 2.1MB tig: atl: The Origin and Effect of the Nisi Prius Reports. aug: au: Newman, Paul affil: Law School, London School of Economics, London, UK su: Nisi prius Peake, Thomas Legal professions Judges Courts sug: subj: Nisi prius Peake, Thomas Legal professions Judges Courts keyword: evidence Isaac Espinasse John Campbell Law reporting precedent Thomas Peake ab: For some seventy years, rulings made by judges sitting at nisi prius were regularly reported, despite those reports being held in low esteem by the legal profession and such rulings being regarded as of little value as precedents. This article considers why those rulings, at least on matters of substantive law, were rejected as authorities, and sets out the reasons why they were nevertheless reported and cited. The article explains that the principal purposes of these reports were to introduce new members of the profession to the practicalities of preparing cases for trial, and to provide some authority, however slight, to cite in court. The article also explains that, while nisi prius rulings on substantive law were cited by nineteenth century judges, they were used differently to decisions of courts in banc. The greater authority of such rulings on points of evidence, at least up to the mid-nineteenth century, is also explored. The article concludes by examining the tendency of more recent judges to ascribe greater weight to nisi prius rulings than their nineteenth century counterparts, due to the modern profession's ignorance of the former difference in the treatment of nisi prius rulings and the decisions of courts in banc. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Journal of Legal History is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Journal of Legal History holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|