Recently, we have seen a flood of analyses of judicial practice in mainland jurisdictions1 based on citations of judicial decisions in judicial decisions. Continuing Power of Attorney for Health Care: A continuing Power of Attorney for Health Care is the best way to make sure you receive the type of medical care you want. This type of legal document names another adult who speaks on your behalf. He or she acts as your agent or agent. The document allows you to transfer your legal right to make health care decisions to your agent. This power only applies if you don`t have the capacity to make decisions for yourself. As Hitt, whose study was mentioned above and which expands on some of the terms developed by Fowler and Jeon, points out, they actually measured the relevance (relevance in Hitt`s understanding) of previous decisions to current disputes.30 The country`s 94 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts settle disputes by investigating facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right. Our findings could have important implications for contextual modulations of cognitive processes (Baez et al., 2017; Barutta et al., 2011; Cosmelli and IbáÁñez, 2008; Ibáñez et al., 2017; Ibaè±ez and Manes, 2012; Melloni et al., 2014). Morality is a fundamental component of human cultures and provides a mechanism for enforcing social norms (Yoder & Decety, 2014). In fact, morality depends on prescriptive norms about how people should interact with each other, including concepts such as justice, equity, and rights (Yoder & Decety, 2014). However, in addition to ordinary moral norms, law plays an additional regulatory role in social life (Schleim et al., 2011).

In fact, neuroimaging studies have shown similarities between the neural underpinnings of moral and legal decision-making in professional lawyers, suggesting significant overlap in cognitive processing between the two normative processes (Schleim et al., 2011). These partial overlaps between moral and legal decision-making highlight the potential translational implications of our findings. The legal system must regulate sources of bias between defendants, jurors, lawyers, and judges (Greely, 2011). Our findings provide unique evidence that judges and lawyers are less affected by typical biases in morally charged third-party decisions. Thus, the results support a “reduced bias” legal approach (Gewirtz, 1996), at least with respect to the effects of speech manipulation and associated physiological signals. Our findings may have implications for countries that use juries as part of their legal systems. While there was some debate about whether judges should deny jurors relevant evidence because they fear they might use it inappropriately (e.g. Pettys, 2008), our results provide empirical support for formal assumptions such as the following from the US Federal Rules of Evidence: “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially balanced by one or more of the following dangers: unfair bias, confusion of subjects, jury deception, undue delay, Waste of time or unnecessary submission of cumulative evidence. Our results confirm this rule and suggest that ordinary citizens (who may be potential jurors) are more biased than judges towards the manipulation of language and the associated physiological conditions. Judicial decisions, along with legislative and regulatory decrees, are one of the most important sources of legal authority in our common law system. Laws must also be read in conjunction with case law interpreting the correct application of legislation. Courts follow the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis (“leave the decision in abeyance”) to create and develop legal bodies to ensure that individuals are treated equally in similar factual circumstances.

What really seems to be common to all those who use network analysis to examine the network of citations of judicial decisions is the understanding that citations themselves are not only capable of revealing various mechanisms in the application of case law, but are also able to provide information about the most frequently cited decisions, the least and perhaps with what force.43 In this sense, more frequent Decisions cited with stronger links to them are considered “more important” or “relevant” than others. Many scholars therefore seem to understand the meaning of a judicial decision as something that manifests itself in the presence of an open quotation of that decision in another judicial decision. Mucus S, Spranger TM, Erk S et al. (2011) From moral to legal judgement: the influence of normative context in lawyers and other academics. Soc Cogn affects Neurosci 6:48â57. doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq010 relevance has been demonstrated as a property that involves a trade-off between processing overload and cognitive effects.