Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice in Lower Court Decision Making

The distinction between dictum and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dictum. Specifically, federal courts of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4000 cases. In this Essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment of the implications of our study. Most notably, our findings raise questions about the vitality of traditional common law judging. Rather than play a significant role in the development of legal principles by treating extraneous statements in higher court rulings as nonbinding dicta, lower courts cede much of their common law power to higher courts. Higher courts can issue sweeping rulings that address questions not immediately before them, knowing that those statements will not be treated as dicta. In highlighting this dynamic between lower and higher courts, our study also casts light on the ongoing debate over judicial minimalism. The ability of courts to pursue the minimalist project of issuing narrow, fact-specific rulings is undercut by a regime in which lower courts look to higher courts for the enunciation of legal principles. Finally, our study is highly salient to the practice of law. Lawyers, although frequently referencing the holding-dictum distinction in legal briefs, have little reason to think that a lower court will ever invoke the distinction to rule against higher court dicta

The Vanishing Common Law Judge

The common law style of judging appears to be on its way out. Trial courts rarely shape legal policymaking by asserting decisional autonomy through distinguishing, limiting, or criticizing higher court precedent. In an earlier study, we demonstrated the reluctance of lower court judges to assert decisional autonomy by invoking the holding–dicta dichotomy. In this Article, we make use of original empirical research to study the level of deference U.S. district court judges exhibit toward higher courts and whether the level of deference has changed over time. Our analysis of citation behavior over an eighty-year period reveals a dramatic shift in judges’ practices. In the first fifty years included in our study, district court judges were not notably deferential to either their federal court of appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court. District court judges regularly assessed the relevance and scope of precedents from those higher courts and asserted their prerogative to disregard many of them. Since then, judges have become far more likely to treat a given higher court precedent as dispositive. In so doing, lower courts have embraced a hierarchical view of judicial authority at odds with the common law style of judging. The causes of this shift are multifold and likely permanent; we discuss several of them, including dramatic changes in legal research, the proliferation of law clerks throughout the legal system, the growing docket of lower court judges, the growth of the administrative state, and the Supreme Court’s increasing embrace of judicial hierarchy

Surviving a Failure - Efficacy and a laboratory -Based Test of the Hoplessness Model of Despression

Abramson, Metalsky and Alloy's (1989) revision of the reformulated model of helplessness and depression to hopelessness theory introduced the possibility of additional diatheses for depression. The present paper describes a laboratory-based test of the hopelessness model which provides an opportunity to explore the role of efficacy in relation to the new model and to extend its application to anxiety. Under-graduate students were asked to complete a general ability test and received false feedback which led them to believe that they had performed less well than they had anticipated. Attributional style was found to be predictive of increase in anxiety following failure feedback. The interaction Between attributional style and efficacy was found to predict depression. Among subjects who were low in efficacy attributional style was significantly related to depression. While the study provided partial support for hopelessness theory it indicates a role for the assessment of efficacy as a moderator variable within the model

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and the role and contributions of the Private Partners Scientific Board (PPSB)

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Private Partners Scientific Board (PPSB) encompasses members from industry, biotechnology, diagnostic, and non-profit organizations that have until recently been managed by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) and provided financial and scientific support to ADNI programs. In this article, we review some of the major activities undertaken by the PPSB, focusing on those supporting the most recently completed National Institute on Aging grant, ADNI3, and the impact it has had on streamlining biomarker discovery and validation in Alzheimer's disease. We also provide a perspective on the gaps that may be filled with future PPSB activities as part of ADNI4 and beyond. HIGHLIGHTS: The Private Partners Scientific board (PPSB) continues to play a key role in enabling several Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) activities. PPSB working groups have led landscape assessments to provide valuable feedback on new technologies, platforms, and methods that may be taken up by ADNI in current or future iterations