Show simple item record

dc.contributor.supervisor McCormick, Peter Androkovich-Farries, Bonnie University of Lethbridge. Faculty of Arts and Science 2007-05-12T20:34:06Z 2007-05-12T20:34:06Z 2004
dc.description vii, 149 leaves ; 29 cm. en
dc.description.abstract This paper will attempt to explore the history and function of judical disagreement behaviour using information from both the Canadian Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. The evolution of national high court decision making, highlights the changing role of courts within the political and public spheres, as well as the increasing authority courts have over policy. This changing role reinforces the need to study the role of courts on law. I will use minority opinions from the Laskin and Dickson courts to study what disagreement reveals about the decision making process. Judicial disagreement has largely been summed up into two deficient stereotypes: the dissent as "serious" disagreement and the separate concurrence as inferior disagreement to the dissent. I will dispel this fallacy by introducing the five categories created to describe a new way of thinking about judicial disagreement and to shatter the old stereotypes. en
dc.language.iso en_US en
dc.publisher Lethbridge, Alta. : University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Arts and Science, 2004 en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Thesis (University of Lethbridge. Faculty of Arts and Science) en
dc.subject Dissertations, Academic en
dc.subject Canada. Supreme Court en
dc.subject United States. Supreme Court en
dc.subject Canada -- Politics and government en
dc.subject United States -- Politics and government en
dc.subject Judicial power -- Canada en
dc.subject Judicial power -- United States en
dc.title Judicial disagreement on the Supreme Court of Canada en
dc.type Thesis en
dc.publisher.faculty Arts and Science
dc.publisher.department Department of Political Science Masters

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search OPUS

Advanced Search


My Account