Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2023 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Pires, Michel Hernane Noronha
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Lopes, João Batista
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso embargado |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/39405
|
Resumo: |
Currently, courts play a very important role in defining the law, dictating patterns of behavior by means of precedents. Nonetheless, the law created by courts is not immutable. Changes are welcome and, sometimes, desirable, as long as they occur in a rational and justified manner, without bringing risk to stability, to legal certainty and to equality, which are values that belong to the core of the rule of law. The present work focuses on the argumentative process of overruling and aims at identifying its own elements and arguments. Within rational discourse, overruling demands justification which is special (for it is an extraordinary measure) and specific (resorting to arguments related to stare decisis, which is not a simple reassessment of the precedent’s reasoning). Setting the arguments which are suitable to overruling apart from those which are unsuitable, for they do not lend themselves to justifying departures from precedent, brings relevant benefits as regards rationality and stability |
