Chapter 1

Introduction to Law and
Legal Reasoning

Answers to Questions in the Reviewing Feature
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER

1A. PARTIES
The automobile manufacturers are the plaintiffs, and the state of California is the defendant.

2A. Remedy
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, an equitable remedy, to prevent the state of California from enforcing its statute restricting carbon dioxide emissions.

3A. Source of law
This case involves a law passed by the California legislature and a federal statute; thus the primary source of law is statutory law.

4A. Finding the law
Federal statutes are found in the United States Code, and California statutes are published in the California Code. You would look in these sources to find the relevant state and federal statutes.

Answer to Debate This Question in the Reviewing Feature at the End of the Chapter

UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, COURTS ARE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED IN THEIR JURISDICTIONS UNLESS THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON NOT TO. SHOULD U.S. COURTS CONTINUE TO ADHERE TO THIS COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE, GIVEN THAT OUR GOVERNMENT NOW REGULATES SO MANY AREAS BY STATUTE? BOTH ENGLAND AND THE U.S. LEGAL SYSTEMS WERE CONSTRUCTED ON THE COMMON LAW SYSTEM. THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MAJOR PART OF THIS SYSTEM—COURTS SHOULD FOLLOW PRECEDENTS WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED, EXCEPTED UNDER COMPELLING REASONS. EVEN THOUGH MORE COMMON LAW IS BEING TURNED INTO STATUTORY LAW, THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS IS STILL VALID. AFTER ALL, EVEN STATUTES HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED BY COURTS. WHAT BETTER BASIS FOR JUDGES TO RENDER THEIR DECISIONS THAN BY BASING THEM ON PRECEDENTS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND?

In contrast, some students may argue that the doctrine of stare decisis is passé. There is certainly less common law governing, say, environmental