Law Atlas

How The Law Decides
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme

Switch Atlas

Law Atlas

Disputed Statements

Claims this atlas currently marks as unsettled or as tested and found false. A debated fact is one scholars hold competing positions on; a debunked one has been checked against the record and found not to hold. Both are kept in view rather than quietly smoothed over, with the reasoning that put each one where it stands.

35 statements.

Canon Law, Origin Year1140

Canon Law, Legal Systems

Standing

Concerns Origin Year

Currently States 1140

Legal historians commonly date the birth of canon law as an autonomous legal science to around 1140, when the monk Gratian compiled and systematically reconciled centuries of conflicting canons in his Decretum at Bologna, a work later comparative-law scholarship (Harold Berman among others) credits with shaping the method of the whole Western legal tradition. Councils and collections of canons existed for centuries before Gratian, so an earlier origin point is also defensible depending on whether systematic legal science or the raw body of canons is meant.

Source Major Legal Systems in the World Today, Rene David and John E.C. Brierley

Civil Law, Origin Year1804

Civil Law, Legal Systems

Standing

Concerns Origin Year

Currently States 1804

1804, the enactment of the Napoleonic Code, is taken here as the origin of the modern codified civil law tradition, since it was the model most widely adopted or adapted by other nations. The tradition intellectual roots are far older, tracing to Roman law and particularly to Justinian own sixth century Corpus Juris Civilis, so which date counts as origin depends on whether the Roman legal inheritance or its modern codified form is meant.

Source Major Legal Systems in the World Today, Rene David and John E.C. Brierley

Codex Gregorianus, Erac. 291 to 294 CE (exact date unknown)

Codex Gregorianus, Codes

Standing

Concerns Era

Currently States c. 291 to 294 CE (exact date unknown)

Believed to have been produced around 291 to 294 CE, but the exact date is unknown and not agreed among scholars.

Source Codex Gregorianus (Wikipedia)

Common Law, Origin Year1066

Common Law, Legal Systems

Standing

Concerns Origin Year

Currently States 1066

1066, the Norman Conquest of England, is often cited as the starting point of a unified English common law, since the Norman kings began sending royal judges on circuit to apply law common to the whole kingdom rather than varying by local custom. The consolidation is more properly a gradual process spanning the eleventh through thirteenth centuries, with the reforms of Henry II in the twelfth century particularly significant, so no single year marks the system true origin.

Source Major Legal Systems in the World Today, Rene David and John E.C. Brierley

Dawud al-Zahiri, BirthplaceKufa

Dawud al-Zahiri, Jurists

Standing

Concerns Birthplace

Currently States Kufa

Source Dawud al-Zahiri - Wikipedia

Dineke de Groot, BirthplaceHaarlem, Netherlands

Dineke de Groot, Jurists

Standing

Concerns Birthplace

Currently States Haarlem, Netherlands

English Wikipedia infobox gives Amsterdam as birthplace while Dutch Wikipedia gives Haarlem

Source Wikipedia (Dutch): Dineke de Groot

Edict of Theodoric, Era5th or 6th century CE (exact year disputed)

Edict of Theodoric, Codes

Standing

Concerns Era

Currently States 5th or 6th century CE (exact year disputed)

Dated to the 5th or 6th century CE; the exact year and even the issuing kingdom are disputed among scholars, with the traditional Ostrogothic attribution contested since 1953.

Source Edict of Theodoric (Wikipedia)

Edict of Theodoric, Promulgated ByTraditionally attributed to Theodoric the Great, Ostrogothic king (contested)

Edict of Theodoric, Codes

Standing

Concerns Promulgated By

Currently States Traditionally attributed to Theodoric the Great, Ostrogothic king (contested)

Traditionally attributed to Theodoric the Great, Ostrogothic king; the attribution has been contested since 1953, with some scholars proposing Theodoric II of the Visigoths or Odoacer instead.

Source Edict of Theodoric (Wikipedia)

Edict of Theodoric, Era (category)Medieval / Pre-1500

Edict of Theodoric, Codes

Standing

Concerns Era (category)

Currently States Medieval / Pre-1500

Category derived from this entry's own free-text property; the source property's own status carries whatever is unresolved.

Source Edict of Theodoric (Wikipedia)

Habeas Corpus, Core PrincipleThe Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) permits Congress to suspend habeas corpus only in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety requires it, and only Congress, not the Executive, holds that power; how far the Clause reaches was contested in litigation over Guantanamo Bay detainees following the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, until the Supreme Court held in Boumediene v Bush (2008) that the Suspension Clause affirmatively guaranteed habeas review even for alien enemy combatants held outside the United States.

Habeas Corpus, Doctrines

Standing

Concerns Core Principle

Currently States The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) permits Congress to suspend habeas corpus only in cases of rebellion or invasion when the public safety requires it, and only Congress, not the Executive, holds that power; how far the Clause reaches was contested in litigation over Guantanamo Bay detainees following the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, until the Supreme Court held in Boumediene v Bush (2008) that the Suspension Clause affirmatively guaranteed habeas review even for alien enemy combatants held outside the United States.

How far the constitutional right to habeas review extends beyond sovereign United States territory, and to whom, remains a genuinely contested question in wartime and national-security litigation.

Source Habeas Corpus (Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School)

Halakha, Origin Year200

Halakha, Legal Systems

Standing

Concerns Origin Year

Currently States 200

Comparative-law treatments often point to the codification of the Mishnah, traditionally dated to around 200 CE under Judah ha-Nasi, as the moment Jewish law took a systematized, citable legal form, while the tradition itself traces the law further back to the written and oral Torah, so which point counts as origin depends on whether codification or the older textual inheritance is meant.

Source Major Legal Systems in the World Today, Rene David and John E.C. Brierley

Herennius Modestinus, BirthplacePossibly Dalmatia; sources state only that he was probably a native of one of the Greek-speaking provinces of the Roman Empire

Herennius Modestinus, Jurists

Standing

Concerns Birthplace

Currently States Possibly Dalmatia; sources state only that he was probably a native of one of the Greek-speaking provinces of the Roman Empire

The source itself gives no firm birthplace, only a probability; it does not resolve between a Greek-speaking province in general and Dalmatia specifically.

Source Herennius Modestinus (Wikipedia)

International Court of Justice, Founding Year1945

International Court of Justice, Courts

Standing

Concerns Founding Year

Currently States 1945

1945 is the year the United Nations Charter, which established the Court, was signed. The Court itself began hearing cases the following year, 1946, so 1946 is sometimes cited instead as the year it became operational.

Source Encyclopaedia Britannica

International Criminal Court, Founding Year2002

International Criminal Court, Courts

Standing

Concerns Founding Year

Currently States 2002

2002 is the year the Rome Statute entered into force and the Court formally came into being. The Rome Statute itself was adopted in 1998, so 1998 is sometimes cited instead as the founding year.

Source Encyclopaedia Britannica

Judicial Review, Core PrincipleJudicial review in the United States operates alongside qualified immunity, a judicially created doctrine shielding government officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 unless they violated a clearly established right; the doctrine's own textual basis is disputed. Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in Ziglar v Abbasi (2017), wrote that the Court's own qualified immunity framework substitutes its own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress, and other judges and scholars have argued the doctrine lacks support in the statute's own text or legislative history.

Judicial Review, Doctrines

Standing

Concerns Core Principle

Currently States Judicial review in the United States operates alongside qualified immunity, a judicially created doctrine shielding government officials from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 unless they violated a clearly established right; the doctrine's own textual basis is disputed. Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in Ziglar v Abbasi (2017), wrote that the Court's own qualified immunity framework substitutes its own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress, and other judges and scholars have argued the doctrine lacks support in the statute's own text or legislative history.

Whether qualified immunity is a legitimate judicial gloss on Section 1983 or an unsupported judicial invention is a live and unresolved dispute among sitting justices and scholars, not a settled question.

Source Qualified Immunity (Wikipedia)

Julius Paulus, BirthplaceDisputed: an unknown Phoenician town in Roman Syria, or Patavium (modern Padua), Roman Italy

Julius Paulus, Jurists

Standing

Concerns Birthplace

Currently States Disputed: an unknown Phoenician town in Roman Syria, or Patavium (modern Padua), Roman Italy

The source itself presents two competing origins with no resolution between them; a statue inscription found at Patavium is the basis offered for the second candidate.

Source Julius Paulus (Wikipedia)

Lassa Oppenheim, Death Date1919-10-07

Lassa Oppenheim, Jurists

Standing

Concerns Death Date

Currently States 1919-10-07

Wikipedia own infobox gives 19 October 1919, conflicting with the lead sentence own 7 October 1919; recorded as debated pending a source that resolves the conflict.

Source Wikipedia: Lassa Oppenheim

M'Naghten Rules, Core PrincipleWhether the M'Naghten Rules remain the right test for criminal insanity is a live and unsettled question: some United States states use it as adopted, others have replaced it with the Model Penal Code's broader substantial-capacity test, which excuses a defendant who lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform conduct to the law, and a handful of states, including Kansas, Montana, Idaho and Utah, have abolished an independent insanity defense altogether, permitting mental illness to be raised only to negate the required mental state (mens rea).

M'Naghten Rules, Doctrines

Standing

Concerns Core Principle

Currently States Whether the M'Naghten Rules remain the right test for criminal insanity is a live and unsettled question: some United States states use it as adopted, others have replaced it with the Model Penal Code's broader substantial-capacity test, which excuses a defendant who lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to conform conduct to the law, and a handful of states, including Kansas, Montana, Idaho and Utah, have abolished an independent insanity defense altogether, permitting mental illness to be raised only to negate the required mental state (mens rea).

Which test best balances moral culpability against the reality of mental illness remains genuinely contested among criminal law scholars and legislatures, evidenced by the continuing split among jurisdictions.

Source M'Naghten Rules (Wikipedia)

Precedent (Stare Decisis), Core PrincipleHow much deference a precedent is owed, and when it may be overruled, is itself contested: the Supreme Court has said stare decisis is not an inexorable command and may yield when a decision is unworkable or badly reasoned, but critics argue the Court applies that standard selectively, as in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), whose majority opinion held that Roe v Wade was egregiously wrong from the start and that its reasoning was exceptionally weak, while the joint dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote, with sorrow, for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection, we dissent.

Precedent (Stare Decisis), Doctrines

Standing

Concerns Core Principle

Currently States How much deference a precedent is owed, and when it may be overruled, is itself contested: the Supreme Court has said stare decisis is not an inexorable command and may yield when a decision is unworkable or badly reasoned, but critics argue the Court applies that standard selectively, as in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), whose majority opinion held that Roe v Wade was egregiously wrong from the start and that its reasoning was exceptionally weak, while the joint dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote, with sorrow, for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection, we dissent.

Whether the Dobbs majority applied a principled stare decisis standard or one result-driven exception is a genuinely contested question among justices and scholars, not a settled one.

Source Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Wikipedia)

Proportionality, Core PrincipleUnited States constitutional law has generally declined to adopt a general proportionality test of the kind used in Germany and the European Union, relying instead on categorical tiers of scrutiny (rational basis, intermediate and strict scrutiny); whether the United States should move toward a general proportionality approach is a live debate among constitutional scholars, some arguing it would make the balancing that tiered scrutiny already performs implicitly more transparent, others arguing it would hand courts too open-ended a licence to override legislative judgments.

Proportionality, Doctrines

Standing

Concerns Core Principle

Currently States United States constitutional law has generally declined to adopt a general proportionality test of the kind used in Germany and the European Union, relying instead on categorical tiers of scrutiny (rational basis, intermediate and strict scrutiny); whether the United States should move toward a general proportionality approach is a live debate among constitutional scholars, some arguing it would make the balancing that tiered scrutiny already performs implicitly more transparent, others arguing it would hand courts too open-ended a licence to override legislative judgments.

Whether proportionality or tiered categorical scrutiny is the more disciplined method of constitutional review is a genuinely unsettled comparative law debate, not a resolved one.

Source Proportionality (Law) (Wikipedia)