POL 208 Exam 2 Study Guide: Common Law, Statutory Interpretation, and Judicial Review

Comprehensive vocabulary flashcards covering common law principles, statutory interpretation canons, federal case law, and constitutional judicial review based on the POL 208 Exam 2 study guide.

Common law

Law developed through court decisions over time, rather than written entirely in statutes, in which judges use earlier decisions as guidance or binding precedent.

Reception statutes

State laws that adopted English common law as a starting point after independence, except where modified by state law or unsuitable to local conditions.

Stare decisis

A Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided," establishing that courts generally adhere to earlier decisions to ensure the law remains stable and predictable.

Ratio decidendi

The legal rule or principle necessary to decide a case; it constitutes the part of a judicial opinion that creates binding precedent.

Distinguishing

The practice of explaining why an earlier case does not control a present dispute because of a meaningful factual or legal difference.

Abrogate / overrule

To abolish or reject an existing legal rule, either through a court overruling its own prior decisions or a legislature passing a statute to displace judge-made common law.

Fact freedom

The judicial discretion judges possess to determine which facts matter in a dispute and how to characterize them.

Legal freedom

The latitude judges possess to choose, interpret, extend, narrow, or distinguish legal rules and precedents.

Vertical precedent

A doctrine requiring a lower court to follow the binding decisions rendered by a higher court within the same judicial system.

Horizontal precedent

The principle by which a court considers its own earlier decisions, usually adhering to them but retaining the power to overrule them in appropriate circumstances.

Persuasive / extra-jurisdictional precedent

A judicial decision from another jurisdiction or a court at the same level that is not binding on a court but may be considered useful or convincing.

Kerwhacker v. Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Railroad (1854)

An Ohio Supreme Court case holding that the English common-law rule requiring livestock owners to fence in animals was unsuitable to Ohio's conditions, illustrating that received common law was adapted rather than copied word-for-word.

Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)

An English Court of Exchequer decision establishing the traditional privity-of-contract limitation by holding that a mail coach contractor owed no duty of care to an injured coachman with whom he had no direct contract.

Thomas v. Winchester (1852)

A New York Court of Appeals case creating an exception to privity of contract by holding a vendor liable for mislabeling deadly poison (belladonna) as harmless dandelion extract, because the act created imminent danger to human life.

Loop v. Litchfield (1870)

A New York Court of Appeals decision limiting the Thomas dangerous-product exception by ruling that an ordinary defective flywheel used safely for years was not inherently dangerous.

Losee v. Clute (1873)

A New York decision holding that boiler manufacturers owed no duty to an adjacent property owner injured by a boiler explosion after the purchasing paper company had accepted, owned, and operated it for months.

Smith v. Devlin (1882)

A New York Court of Appeals case holding that an independent scaffold builder could be liable to an injured painter despite lacking a contract, because constructing a defective 90-foot scaffold made serious injury natural and probable.

State v. Pine (1987)

A Rhode Island Supreme Court decision judicially abolishing the common-law year-and-a-day rule due to modern medical advances, but holding that due process barred applying the abolition retroactively to the defendant.

State v. Minster (1985)

A Maryland Court of Appeals case refusing to judicially abolish the common-law year-and-a-day rule, reasoning that balancing prosecution policy against fairness to the accused was better left to the legislature.

Codification

The process of organizing enacted statutes into a systematic, subject-matter-based code to make laws easier to locate and apply.

Bicameralism

A legislative design featuring two chambers, requiring a bill to pass both the House and Senate in identical form to become law.

Conference committee

A temporary joint legislative committee created to reconcile differences when the House and Senate pass conflicting versions of the same bill.

Logrolling

A legislative vote-trading practice where lawmakers agree to support each other's measures in order to assemble enough votes to pass a bill or legislative package.

Legislative history

Internal records generated during the lawmaking process—such as committee reports, hearing transcripts, and floor debates—that courts sometimes review to interpret ambiguous statutory text.

Plain meaning

An interpretive rule directing courts to begin with the enacted words of a statute and, if clear in context, enforce them as written without seeking alternative interpretations.

Ordinary meaning / textualism

An interpretive approach reading enacted statutory words as an ordinary reader would understand them in context, incorporating statutory structure, surrounding words, and subject matter.

Golden rule (statutory interpretation)

A principle stating that if a literal reading of a statute produces an absurd or unreasonable result, the court may modify the interpretation to avoid the absurdity while remaining as faithful as possible to the text.

In pari materia

A canon of construction providing that statutes addressing the same subject matter should be read and construed together to maintain a coherent legal system.

Rule of lenity

A canon requiring courts to resolve genuine ambiguities in criminal statutes in favor of the criminal defendant when ordinary interpretive tools fail to clarify the text.

Mischief rule / purposive approach

An approach to statutory interpretation that analyzes what defect or problem the legislature was attempting to remedy and interprets the statutory text to address that mischief.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

A Latin canon meaning that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others, suggesting that an explicit list of exceptions was intended to exclude unlisted exceptions.

Ejusdem generis

A canon of construction stating that when general words follow a list of specific items, the general words should be construed to encompass only things of the same general class or kind as the listed items.

Omitted-words principle

An interpretive presumption establishing that courts should not supply words, exceptions, or requirements that the legislature omitted from the text.

Constitutional avoidance

An interpretive canon providing that if a statute supports two reasonable interpretations and one raises serious constitutional concerns, courts should adopt the interpretation that avoids the constitutional problem.

Statutory stare decisis

The heightened deference given to prior judicial interpretations of statutes, based on the rationale that Congress retains the legislative power to amend the statute if it disagrees.

Iowa v. Russell (1993)

An Iowa Supreme Court case applying plain statutory text to uphold an OWI conviction for driving a golf cart, ruling that a golf cart satisfied the broad statutory definition of a self-propelled "motor vehicle."

Smith v. United States (1993)

A U.S. Supreme Court case holding that trading a firearm for cocaine constituted "using" a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime under the broad ordinary meaning of the word "use."

Watson v. United States (2007)

A Supreme Court decision holding that receiving a firearm in exchange for drugs does not constitute "using" a firearm under ordinary English usage, while also reaffirming statutory stare decisis regarding Smith.

Conroy v. Aniskoff (1993)

A Supreme Court case featuring Justice Scalia's concurrence, which argued that clear statutory language must end the inquiry and criticized relying on legislative history as indeterminate and illegitimate.

McBoyle v. United States (1931)

A Supreme Court ruling authored by Justice Holmes holding that the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act's phrase "other self-propelled vehicle" did not include airplanes, emphasizing ordinary meaning, ejusdem generis, and fair notice.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978)

A Supreme Court ruling enjoining completion of the Tellico Dam under the Endangered Species Act to protect the snail darter, holding courts must enforce plain statutory mandates regardless of public financial costs.

United States v. Knox (1992)

A Third Circuit decision holding that videotapes focused on children's clothed pubic areas constituted a "lascivious exhibition," relying on the ordinary meaning of "exhibition" and legislative history showing Congress dropped an express nudity requirement.

Article V amendment process

The formal constitutional procedure requiring an amendment to be proposed by two-thirds of both congressional chambers or two-thirds of state conventions, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Supremacy Clause (Article VI)

The constitutional provision establishing that the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes made in pursuance thereof, and treaties constitute the supreme law of the land.

Judicial review

The power of courts to examine government actions and legislation, and refuse to enforce any that conflict with the Constitution.

Counter-majoritarian difficulty

The theoretical dilemma concerning how unelected federal judges serving life tenures can legitimately invalidate laws enacted by elected, majoritarian representatives.

Judicial supremacy

The perspective that the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations are authoritative, final, and binding on all other branches of government.

Departmentalism

The view that each of the three branches of government possesses independent authority and obligation to interpret the Constitution within its own sphere of duty.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The foundational Supreme Court case establishing federal judicial review, holding that the Constitution is the superior written law and that ordinary statutes conflicting with it are void.

Advisory opinion

A judicial ruling issued on an abstract or hypothetical legal question absent an active dispute between adverse parties, which Article III federal courts lack power to issue.

Mootness

A justiciability doctrine requiring dismissal of a lawsuit if subsequent events eliminate the live controversy, rendering a judicial ruling devoid of real-world legal effect.

Ripeness

A justiciability threshold requiring a legal dispute to be sufficiently developed, concrete, and imminent rather than speculative before a federal court will decide it.

Political question doctrine

A justiciability limit under which federal courts refuse to decide constitutional questions textually committed to the political branches or lacking judicially manageable standards.

Article III standing

The tripartite constitutional requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate an actual or imminent concrete injury in fact, causation fairly traceable to the defendant, and redressability via court order.

Originalism

An approach to constitutional interpretation that derives meaning from the original understanding or public meaning of the text at the time of its adoption and ratification.

Living constitutionalism

An interpretive philosophy allowing constitutional principles to adapt and apply to modern circumstances, evolving societal values, and contemporary developments.

Judicial restraint

A judicial philosophy counseling judges to decide cases on narrow grounds, adhere strictly to precedent, defer to elected bodies, and avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings.

Casey stare decisis factors

Prudential considerations identified in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to evaluate overruling constitutional precedent: practical workability, societal reliance, doctrinal developments, changed factual conditions, and institutional legitimacy.