Defining The Concept Of Precedent

A legal precedent is a court decision that becomes a reference of authority to deciding future cases involving similar scenarios (Miller, 2014). Precedents are set when the judicial system interprets a principle of law as it applies to a particular set of facts; when similar facts are present in future cases, the courts will adhere to the previous decision in the original case as the basis for ruling in the same fashion. Lower courts are subject to precedents and cannot overrule. A precedent can by overruled by the Supreme Court when “historical conditions change or the philosophy of the court undergoes a major shift” (Legal dictionary - precedent, 2015). An often used example in this instance is the Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954), in which the Supreme Court repudiated the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896) (Legal dictionary - precedent, 2015). For sixty years, the Plessy v. Ferguson made racial segregation legal until Brown, when a court

The next case study was on Sumo Wrestling matches in Japan. Sumo wrestling is huge in Japan and the ranking is everything to the sumo wrestlers. Highest ranked wrestlers are treated like royalty while those who don’t rank as high must tend to their superiors and do jobs that are less than desirable. The results of the data in this chapter shows that a wrestler very well might throw a match to help his opponent maintain his current ranking, when throwing the match does not hurt or help his current ranking. There was economic and social incentive for them to cheat. A wrestler would help another out with the promise of being helped out when they needed it. It was proven that the majority of sumo wrestlers do cheat at one point or another.

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

The rules of precedent themselves are judge made, except where a statute has intervened. Occasionally, judges have to decide on a case where there is

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

Stare decisis “to let the decision stand” operates in a pyramid-type fashion and is the doctrine that judicial decisions stand as precedent for cases arising in the future. It is a fundamental policy of our law that, except in unusual circumstances, a court’s determination on a point of law will be followed by courts of the same or lower rank in later cases presenting the same legal issue, even though different parties are involved and any years have elapsed.

* Case Law/Precedent/STARE DECISIS – Case Law is the doctrines and principles announced in cases. It governs all areas not covered by statutory law or administrative law and is part of our common law tradition. A Precedent is a decision that furnished an example of authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar legal principles or facts. For example, when a judge is making a ruling on a case, the judge may refer back to a similar case to see what the previous ruling was to keep the result similar. Stare Decisis is the practice of this process, deciding new cases with reference

It must be possible to extract the ratio decidendi of the precedent. The ratio decidendi (reason for a decision) is the point of law on which the previous decision was based. Obiter dicta are remarks of the judge, which are not essential for the disposal of the case. They tend to be hypotheses indicating what his preferred decision would have been if the facts had been slightly different. The doctrine of judicial precedent is less rigid in the criminal courts.

Precedent- A legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

You are in a California Court of Appeal. You cite a California Supreme Court case. Opposing counsel cites a Ninth Circuit decision that interprets Oregon law. Both are on point. Is either authority binding? Which authority has greater weight?

It's referring to precedents. Precedents are previous decisions of the court that need to be followed by courts in the same or lower in the hierarchy. The court must give consideration but there is no rule on how it should apply it to the facts of the case at hand.

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

THESIS: Contact sports have been here since the medieval times. Soccer was also already being put into sport use by china in the dynasties. Implied, players on both teams have agreed to be hit, pushed, shoved, and possibly fought. What can be used for considering when or where a player crosses the line? Using examples from previous court cases, we will examine how players in the NHL could be charged when excessive force against other players in the opposite team come into play. Having hockey being used for an example, we will examine and look at the rules of the NHL, as well as how Todd Bertuzzi from the Vancouver Canucks stepped over the line, and was charged with assault.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis which means ‘to stand by what has been decided’. It is a common law principle whereby judges are bound to follow previous decisions in cases where the material facts are sufficiently similar and the earlier decision was made in a court above the current one in the court hierarchy. This doctrine of precedent is extremely strong in English law as it ensures fairness and consistency and it highlights the importance of case law in our legal system. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."