Courts may revise common-law rules even where legislatures have failed to act

Evidence

True it is that when a rule has been established by legislation, ho.ever undesirable it may be, it is for the Legislature alone to remedy the situation, * * *. But when the rule is one of common law established by the courts the remedy lies with either the Legislature or the courts, and inaction by one does not preclude action by the otherJ *Even so conservative a jurist as the late Mr. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2368

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharp statement of which bodies may reform statute versus common law — core institutional-competence doctrine for the Law course.
• XREF: Pays off ch5’s point that courts make law only as a byproduct of adjudication, and grounds chapter 0’s judicial-legislative competence separation. — connects to: The common law’s own flexibility compels re-testing old rules against new conditions — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2377; Courts may not amend a statute however desirable policy change may be — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1059; Unwritten decisional common law remains the underlying framework of American state legal order — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2 (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Implicit negotiation between courts and legislatures shapes common law even absent statute #expands (0.95) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3539
• Respect for precedent keeps courts from reversing failed policies. #contradicts (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1482
• Common law judges may only decide the case before them #qualifies (0.80) — Burton, Steven J, An Introduction to Law and Legal…, 227
• Legislatures can use declaratory language to correct unwelcome judicial decisions #qualifies (0.72) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 4830
• Stability is sometimes unwisely chosen over progress in judicial lawmaking #exemplifies (0.72) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2557