日志
补课：判决的HOLDING， 普法（WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案为例）
热度 1 |||
美国法律系统是基于英国普通法传统，其特点是法官判决中的法律精神可以成为法律，所谓法官造法 (judge made law)。我在之前举了美国最高法院一个极为重要的判例，Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)。原告若干家长，被告是一个Kansas 州一个城市的教育局。但这个案子不只是解决这些家长及其子女上学的问题，其判决产生的法律精神成为了美国的法律。具体的说，Brown v. Board of Education 推翻了 separate but equal （隔离但是平等）(Plessy v. Ferguson) 的原则，确立了 separate is unequal （隔离就是不平等）的原则。这一判决的重要性读者可以想象，因为这个案子建立原则很显然可以推广到教育之外，成为消除美国种族隔离制度的法律基石。
美国法院的判决往往洋洋洒洒、长篇大论，那么一个判决中哪些内容可以成为新的法律精神，成为其控制链中其他法庭必须遵循的法律准绳呢。只有判决书中的所谓 HOLDING 才能成为控制性的法律原则。HOLDING的字典定义与中文翻译如下
holding, n. (15c) : A court's determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision; a principle drawn from such a decision. Cf. OBITER DICTUM. [Cases: Courts 88.] Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), holding 。（对法庭得出裁决结果至关重要的法律原则的确定；从判决中得出的法律原则）
由这个定义可以看出，holding 是从案件抽象出来的、对逻辑获得判决结果必要的基本法律判断。一个判决书中的其他可有可无的内容就不是holding，而是 dicta（顺便提到的内容）。HOLDING对于后续案件是具有控制性的，是后续案件必须遵守的；而dictum 则没有这个法律效力。
上面的定义看似简单，但也有一定的模糊性。因此，很多律师搞不清一个判决里那些是holding，哪些是dicta。有不少案子就是因为这个混淆导致严重的错误。一般来说，只有非常糊涂的律师才会把HOLDING当成DICTUM加以忽略，更普遍的错误是把DICTUM当成了HOLDING。具体例子我就不在这多讲了。
具体到切诺基案集（The Cherokee Cases) 中的 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案，其HOLDING是什么呢？ 这个案子我们在之前介绍过，乔治亚州立法对切诺基部落国实施管辖：白人没有乔治亚州颁发的许可证不得在切诺基国居留。依据该法，乔治亚抓捕了一名没有许可证住在切诺基国内的传教士，判处四年徒刑。切诺基给传教士雇佣了律师打到美国最高法院。美国最高法院裁决：切诺基作为印第安部落国享有一定的独立主权，并且受切诺基与美国联邦签订的条约的保护，乔治亚州不得侵犯切诺基，因此乔治亚州企图管辖切诺基的那条法律无效，既然法律无效，因此被依据该法律被判刑的传教士无罪。相关判决的英文全文大家可以在网上搜索。现在问题是，这个案子判决书的HOLDING是什么？
根据上面的HOLDING的定义，我们应该顺着判决结论的逻辑链倒推回去，看那些是得出那个结论必要的具有一定普适性的（新的）法律原则。为什么案子中的传教士无罪释放？ 乔治亚州企图管辖切诺基的那条法律无效这可以算是HOLDING，但这是一个很窄的holding，除非你再碰到因同一条乔治亚法律引发的案子，这个holding根本用不上。进一步倒推，我们可以看出，为什么乔治亚这条法律无效？应该有另一个必要的法律判断，作为乔治亚这一法律无效的法律基础。因此，这个案子的更为广泛的holding是其关于印第安部落自主权及其与联邦的关系的法律结论。以后乔治亚或者其他州制订新的企图管辖印第安部落的法律，按照这个 holding, 这些新法律也是无效的、违宪的。
怎么验证我们以上逻辑分析的正确性？我们可以看看美国最高法院在之后是怎么引用WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案的。下面我举1973年美国最高法院的一个判例： McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S. Ct. 1257, 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973)。
McClanahan案的争议是亚利桑那州是否有权对居住于印第安人保留地的印第安人征收个人所得税。在我们看这个案子的判决之前，不妨先自己逻辑思考一下，按照WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 的HOLDING 结果应该是怎样？稍微动点脑子应该知道，WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案说印第安人有自主权，受联邦条约保护，州不得侵扰，这个原则完全可以类推到州政府试图向印第安人征税的情况。美国最高法对McClanahan的判决关键内容如下
The principles governing the resolution of this question are not new ... This policy was first articulated by this Court 141 years ago when Mr. Chief Justice Marshall held that Indian nations were "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guarantied by the United States." Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1832). It followed from this concept of Indian reservations as separate, although dependent nations, that state law could have no role to play within the reservation boundaries. "The Cherokee nation . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." Id., at 561....
Although Worcester on its facts dealt with a State's efforts to extend its criminal jurisdiction to reservation lands, the rationale of the case plainly extended to state taxation within the reservation as well.
上面我特意把held一字加大。hold, vb. (bef. 12c) 2. (Of a court) to adjudge or decide as a matter of law。正是根据WORCESTER v. GEORGIA案关于印第安人部落国的地位及其权利不得被州侵蚀的holding，McClanahan案最终结论：【In this case, appellant's rights as a reservation Indian were violated when the state collected a tax from her which it had no jurisdiction to impose. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below must be Reversed.】
至于美国最高法院在一系列案件中开始脱离 WORCESTER v. GEORGIA的精神，这是美国法律的演化，就像Brown v. Board of Education 开始否定之前 separate but equal 的原则。
发表评论 评论 (5 个评论)
- 回复 岳东晓
- 不要把法律看得太神乎了。法律可以说是门槛最低的行当，只需要认字即可。对律师说看不懂，正是让律师们觉得自己神气，唐人街海明等就可以到处糊弄了。
方枪枪: 我看不懂谁对谁错，几名网友都说看不清到底谁错，但都说唯一能确定的是你的英文水平比那律师强。
当然，在美国要当个好律师需要一定的逻辑思维能力+足够的英语阅读理解力。
这里的问题很简单：
1）词典有一个判决 holding的定义 （简单的说就是得出判决结论所必要的法律原则或者法律判断）；
2） 现在有一个判决里面有一段话，请判断根据这个定义，这段话是不是该判决中的holding 。
解决这个问题，仅仅是拿这个词典定义去套判决这段话。这段话满足这个定义也好，不满足也罢，都应该根据这个定义进行简单的逻辑判断。
很多律师根本无法做到用逻辑思维，根据定义来分析测试一个东西是否满足定义。缺乏分析能力，他们只能找例子、找现成答案。
如果他们有足够的阅读理解力，那么找例子、找现成答案也是一个办法。假设其他权威人士已经就完全相同的问题给出正确答案，那么只要照抄就可以了。但是，很多时候找出的例子给出的分析并不是那么明确，没有说那句话是不是 holding。结果，这又回到英文理解力上去了。
具体到WORCESTER案，争议是我上面黑体字引用的那段关于印第安人部落自主地位的话是不是holding 。我通过（1）holding 定义分析说明那段话是holding---因为它是得出结论必须的法律原则；（2）举例说明那是 holding，在1973年的一个对印第安人征税的案子中，美国最高法明确运用了WORCESTER这个holding，推翻了对印第安人的征税。里面用的held 一词就是说那是 holding 。
正如我上面指出的，律师、法官常犯的错误是把判决中的 dictum当成 holding。 一份判决书里一段法律论述可能是对得出判决结果不必要的，但是要分析出这个不必要性有时并不那么简单。因此，犯这种把dictum当成holding错误的判例很多，并不奇怪。
但把 holding 当成 dictum 那就是非常稀里糊涂，脑子不灵了。把holding当成dictum 是把判决中的核心的、基础性的法律判断当成了唠叨话加以抛弃。
以WORCESTER案为例，如果去掉那个关于印第安人自主权的法律判断，整个案子就失去了法律基础，下面那个乔治亚州无权管印第安人部落的结论就成了空中楼阁。
- 回复 岳东晓
- 我给网友的回复：
【xyw: 我刚刚认真读了一遍岳东晓博士和LAO先生的有关印地安人迁移法案以及相关案件和美国历史的辩论，觉得两人都有一定道理，如果互相之间能够尊重对方一点，这样在网 ...】
岳东晓 2015-2-15 08:50 PM
谢谢你对这个问题提出的见解。我一直认为，辩论问题应该就事论事，在辩论中遇到自己被证明出错时，应该承认而不是闹情绪。 本来我不想再继续在这讨论的，但是看到你的回应，我觉得网友关心的是问题本身。这里，我再就一个问题也是最关键的问题讲一下。
关于 HOLDING 的词典定义，这个基本没有争议。。holding, n. (15c) : A court's determination of a matter of law pivotal to its decision; a principle drawn from such a decision. 问题是怎么判断判决中的某段话是否符合这个定义.
现在WORCESTER案中有这样一段话说：印第安人有一定的自主权、不容州政府侵犯。如果说这段话不符合 holding 的定义，理由是什么？ 这是一个需要逻辑思维的事情。读者应该根据 holding 的定义加以确定或者排除。光COPY词典不是正确运用词典的证明。
对这段话，我进行了套定义分析并且援引了之后美国最高法院的判例，参见 《补课：判决的HOLDING， 普法（WORCESTER v. GEORGIA 案为例）》 http://www.zhenzhubay.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=2&do=blog&id=28216
根据上面的HOLDING的定义，我们应该顺着WORCESTER判决结论的逻辑链倒推回去，看哪些是得出那个结论必要的具有一定普适性的（新的）法律原则。为什么案子中的传教士无罪释放？ 乔治亚州企图管辖切诺基的那条法律无效。这个无效性可以算是HOLDING，但这是一个很窄的holding，除非你再碰到因同一条乔治亚法律引发的案子，这个holding根本用不上。进一步倒推，我们可以追问，为什么乔治亚这条法律无效？应该有另一个必要的法律判断，作为乔治亚这一法律无效的法律基础。因此，这个案子的更为广泛的holding是其关于印第安部落自主权不容州侵犯及其与联邦的关系的法律结论。以后乔治亚或者其他州制订新的企图管辖印第安部落的法律，按照这个 holding, 这些新法律也是无效的、违宪的。
本人根据HOLDING进行的逻辑分析参见上面链接，具体案例参见 McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 93 S. Ct. 1257, 36 L.Ed.2d 129 (1973)。
正是根据WORCESTER 案关于印第安人部落国的地位及其权利不得被州侵蚀的holding，McClanahan案最终结论：【In this case, appellant's rights as a reservation Indian were violated when the state collected a tax from her which it had no jurisdiction to impose.】
////////////////
Rendering one of his most courageous and eloquent opinions, Chief Justice Marshall held that Georgia's assertion of power was invalid. 'The Cherokee nation . . . is a distinct community, occupying its own territory . . . in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.' 6 Pet., at 561.
Despite bitter criticism and the defiance of Georgia which refused to obey this Court's mandate in Worcester[3] the board principles of that decision came to be accepted as law. Over the years this Court has modified these principles in cases where essential tribal relations were not involved and where the rights of Indians would not be jeopardized, but the basic policy of Worcester has remained. Thus, suits by Indians against outsiders in state courts have been sanctioned. See Felix v. Patrick, 220*220 145 U. S. 317, 332; United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432. See also Harrison v. Laveen, 67 Ariz. 337, 196 P. 2d 456.
Williams v. Lee, 358 US 217 (1959)
- 回复 岳东晓
- http://neptune3.galib.uga.edu/ssp/cgi-bin/tei-books-idx.pl?sessionid=7f000001&type=HTML&byte=30984486&rgn=DIV1
http://www.zhenzhubay.com/zzw/upload/up/2/e231f62.png
- 回复 岳东晓
- IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BOSWELL, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 6th Div. 2014
A Digression on The Use of the Word, "Holding"
There are two holdings in this opinion. In this portion of the opinion, which is dicta, we explain the proper use of the word "holding." We use the word, "holding" in its traditional and strict legal sense. Witkin uses the latin phrase, "ratio decidendi" to describe the word, "holding." "The ratio decidendi is the principle or rule that constitutes the ground of the decision, and it is this principle or rule that has the effect of a precedent. It is therefore necessary to read the language of an opinion in the light of its facts and the issues raised, to determine (a) which statements of law were necessary to the decision, and therefore binding precedents, and (b) which were arguments and general observations, unnecessary to the decision, i.e. dicta, with no force as precedents." (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008), § 509, pp. 572-573; see also Hubbard v. Superior Court (1997) 66 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1168; United Steel Workers of America v. Board of Education (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 823, 834-835.) Here, our two holdings are necessary to our decision and are, therefore, binding precedents.
We comment on the strict use of the word, "hold," because there are cases where the appellate court casually characterizes a trial court's ruling as a "holding" or that the trial court "held" something. (e.g. Johnson v. Prasad (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 76; Hilton v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 47, 51; Achen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., supra, 105 Cal.App.2d at p.124.) Since a trial court cannot create "binding precedent," it cannot "hold" anything. (Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Bleshe ¢ (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.) There are also cases where the appellate courts casually use the word "hold" when it actually means, conclude. For example, the Hilton court said: "We hold the ruling of the trial court was erroneous as an act in excess of the court's jurisdiction." (Hilton v. Superior Court, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 51; see also City of Palmdale v. City of Lancaster (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 978, 985; People v. Biane (2013) 58 Cal.4th 381, 398.)
Extreme care should be taken in the choice of words for a true holding. As Witkin has said: "A conclusion in which the holding on legal issues is clearly stated is common and highly desirable." (Witkin, Manuel on Appellate Court Opinions (1977) § 78, p. 137.)
Dean Wigmore states: "[T]here is one thing that it [an opinion] must do, viz., it must state plainly the rule upon which the decision proceeds. This is required, in theory, because the Court's function is to declare the law. . . ." (Leflar, Appellate Judicial Opinions, (1974) ch. 7, p. 155.)
