From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional analogy of space-time curvature described in General Relativity.

This page is about the scientific concept of relativity, for philosophical or sociological theories about relativity see Relativism.

The theory of relativity , or simply relativity, refers specifically to two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity. However, "relativity" can also refer to Galilean relativity.

The term "theory of relativity" was coined by Max Planck in 1908 to emphasize how special relativity (and later, general relativity) uses the principle of relativity.

 Special relativity

Main article: Special relativity

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity),
2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

The resultant theory has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:

• Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
• Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
• Relativity of simultaneity: two events that appear simultaneous to an observer A will not be simultaneous to an observer B if B is moving with respect to A.
• Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc², energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.

The defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean transformations of classical mechanics by the Lorentz transformations. (See Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and introduction to special relativity).

General relativity

Main article: General relativity

General relativity is a theory of gravitation developed by Einstein in the years 1907–1915. The development of general relativity began with the equivalence principle, under which the states of accelerated motion and being at rest in a gravitational field (for example when standing on the surface of the Earth) are physically identical. The upshot of this is that free fall is inertial motion: In other words an object in free fall is falling because that is how objects move when there is no force being exerted on them, instead of this being due to the force of gravity as is the case in classical mechanics. This is incompatible with classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall do so. To resolve this difficulty Einstein first proposed that spacetime is curved. In 1915, he devised the Einstein field equations which relate the curvature of spacetime with the mass, energy, and momentum within it.

Some of the consequences of general relativity are:

• Time goes more slowly at lower gravitational potentials. This is called gravitational time dilation.
• Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars).
• Even rays of light (which have zero mass) bend in the presence of a gravitational field.
• The Universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. This does not contradict the theory of special relativity, since it is space itself that is expanding.
• Frame-dragging, in which a rotating mass "drags along" the space time around it.

Technically, general relativity is a metric theory of gravitation whose defining feature is its use of the Einstein field equations. The solutions of the field equations are metric tensors which define the topology of the spacetime and how objects move inertially.

References and links

This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (February 2008)

See the special relativity references and the general relativity references. For information on the silent film produced on this subject, see The Einstein Theory of Relativity.

External links

Look up theory of relativity in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Relativity: The Special and General Theory

• Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Publicliterature.org
• Yale University Video Lecture: Special and General Relativity at Google Video
• Wikibooks: Special Relativity
• Relativity Animations
• Relativity tutorial
• Living Reviews in Relativity — An open access, peer-referred, solely online physics journal publishing invited reviews covering all areas of relativity research.
• MathPages - Reflections on Relativity — A complete online course on Relativity.
• Relativity explained in one-syllable words
• Relativity explained in words of four letters or less
• On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
• Special Relativity Simulator
• A Relativity Tutorial at Caltech — A basic introduction to concepts of Special and General Relativity, as well as astrophysics.
• Relativity Gravity and Cosmology — A short course offered at MIT.
• Relativity in film clips and animations from the University of New South Wales.
• Animation easy to understand Animation for Pirelli Ralativity Award.
• What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
• Animation clip visualizing the effects of special relativity on fast moving objects.
• Relativity Calculator - Learn Special Relativity Mathematics The mathematics of special relativity presented in as simple and comprehensive manner possible within philosophical and historical contexts.
• Audio clip of Einstein explaining the theory of relativity.

Intent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Intention (criminal). (Discuss)

For Tao Group's software platform, see intent (software).

Look up intent in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act, to fail to do so (i.e. an omission) or to achieve a state of affairs in psychological view it may mean a different thing.

In criminal law, for a given actus reus ("guilty act"), the required element to prove intent consists of showing mens rea (mental state, "guilty mind").

The requirements for the proof of intent in tort law are generally simpler than criminal law. Knowledge of the repercussions of the act is often not necessary. It is sometimes only a matter of showing that there was desire to perform an act.

See also

• Intention (criminal)
• Letter and spirit of the law

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Description

The precedent on an issue is the collective body of judicially announced principles that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.

Precedent is central to legal analysis and rulings in countries that follow common law like the United Kingdom and Canada (except Quebec). In some systems precedent is not binding but is taken into account by the courts.

Types of precedent

Binding precedent

Main article: Binding precedent

Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as binding precedent (alternately mandatory precedent, mandatory or binding authority, etc.). Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In the United States state and federal courts, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional appeals court, and all regional courts fall under a supreme court. By definition decisions of lower courts are not binding on each other or any courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on each other or on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings.

One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows:

Given a determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was necessary to disposition of the precedent case; (3) the significant facts of the precedent case are also present in the pending case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant.^[1]

In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent in any event.

Persuasive precedent

Main article: Persuasive precedent

Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, State courts versus Federal courts in the United States), and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.

In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through the adoption of the persuasive precedent by a higher court. And this is due to per incuram. Dr. McMinge a self made law lord said " the lords can change its decision when it appears right to do so".

Custom

Long-held custom, which has traditionally been recognized by courts and judges, is the first kind of precedent. Custom can be so deeply entrenched in the society at large that it gains the force of law. There need never have been a specific case decided on the same or similar issues in order for a court to take notice of customary or traditional precedent in its deliberations.

Case law

The other type of precedent is case law. In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case? Second, when and where was the precedent decided? A recent decision in the same jurisdiction as the instant case will be given great weight. Next in descending order would be recent precedent in jurisdictions whose law is the same as local law. Least weight would be given to precedent that stems from dissimilar circumstances, older cases that have since been contradicted, or cases in jurisdictions that have dissimilar law.

Critical analysis of precedent

Court formulations

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated:

A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy.^[2]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.^[3]

Academic study

Precedents viewed against passing time can serve to establish trends, thus indicating the next logical step in evolving interpretations of the law. For instance, if immigration has become more and more restricted under the law, then the next legal decision on that subject may serve to restrict it further still.

Scholars have recently attempted to apply network theory to precedents in order to establish which precedents are most important or authoritative, and how the court's interpretations and priorities have changed over time. ^[4]

Super stare decisis

Super-stare decisis is a term used for important precedent that is resistant or immune from being overturned, without regard to whether correctly decided in the first place. It may be viewed as one extreme in a range of precedential power,^[5] or alternately, to express a belief, or a critique of that belief, that some decisions should not be overturned.

In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent," in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations.^[6] Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent" later became associated with different issue: the difficulty of overturning a decision.^[7] In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in Roe v. Wade), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by a kind of super-stare decisis."^[8]

The issue arose anew in the questioning of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito during their confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Before the hearings the chair of the committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op/ed in the New York Times referring to Roe as a "super-precedent." He mentioned the concept (and made seemingly humorous references to "super-duper precedent") during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.^[9]

Criticism of Precedent

In a controversial 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed over-reliance by American lawyers on binding and persuasive authority, rather than the merits of the case at hand, as a major factor behind the escalation of legal costs during the 20th century. He argued that courts should ban the citation of persuasive precedent from outside their jurisdiction, with two exceptions:

(1) cases where the foreign jurisdiction's law is the subject of the case, or

(2) instances where a litigant intends to ask the highest court of the jurisdiction to overturn binding precedent, and therefore needs to cite persuasive precedent to demonstrate a trend in other jurisdictions.^[10]

See also

• Binding precedent
• Case citation
• Case of first impression
• Persuasive precedent
• Stare decisis
• Ratio decidendi
• Distinguish
• Qiyas

Notes

1. ^ Marjorie D. Rombauer, Legal Problem Solving: Analysis, Research and Writing, pp. 22-23 (West Publishing Co., 3d ed. 1978). (Rombauer was a professor of law at the University of Washington.)
2. ^ Allegheny General Hospital v. NLRB, 608 F.2d 965, 969-970 (3rd Cir. 1979) (footnote omitted), as quoted in United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
3. ^ United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996).
4. ^ James H. Fowler and Sangick Jeon, "The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent," Social Networks (2007), doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001
5. ^ Sinclair, Michael. "Precedent, Super-Precedent", George Mason Law Review (14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 363) (2007)
6. ^ Landes, William & Posner, Richard. “Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis”, 19 Journal of Law and Economics 249, 251 (1976).
7. ^ Hayward, Allison. The Per Curiam Opinion of Steel: Buckley v. Valeo as Superprecedent?, Cato Supreme Court Review 195, 202, (2005-2006).
8. ^ Maltz, Earl. "Abortion, Precedent, and the Constitution: A Comment on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey", 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 11 (1992), quoted by Rosen, Jeffrey. So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'?, NY Times (2005-10-30).
9. ^ Benac, Nancy. Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Roe v. Wade, Associated Press (2005-09-13): Specter asked, "Would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent?"
10. ^ Michael H. Trotter, Profit and the Practice of Law: What's Happened to the Legal Profession (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1997), 161-163.