Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent

Case law is one area of the law that is constantly developing and changing in reaction to changing perceptions and further court rulings that may supersede previous case laws (Legal dictionary - case law, 2015). Stare Decisis is a common law doctrine based on practicing law by referencing former decisions or cases (Miller, 2014).

Judicial precedent in its broad definition is the process by which judges follow previously decided cases to aid in their decision providing that the facts are sufficiently similar. The doctrine of judicial precedent seeks to provide consistency and predictability in law by virtue of the application of the principle of

a. Stare decisis is the legal principle of determining points in law according to precendets set by previous legal cases with similar conditions .

In legal models, the judge makes a decision based on facts and laws without considering how the decision may impact public policies. They may also utilize previous cases that have similarities to the current case in order to make a decision. This is useful because they may interpret the Constitution from different points of views of other justices or judges which had to make a decision on a past similar case (Video Engager). The only downside to this model is the fact that judges make decisions without

In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time. Having

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.

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

In the courts of the United States there are three different models of judicial decision making that the Supreme Court uses. Included are the legal model, in which the decisions are based solely on the provided facts on the case. (Mitchel) It can also choose to let previous case hearings and decisions influence the decision for the case at hand. An example would be Reno v. ACLU where the court ruled that the anti-obscenity law was to broadly written that it violated the first amendment right. (Mitchel) Another methodology used is the attitudinal model, where the justices can make any decision they wish without fear of losing their job due to their life term in the position. (Mitchel) A way of viewing this would be imagining a bench with a mixture of conservative and liberal justices, the way the judges interpret the constitution is based on their own ideologies, meaning that the conservative justice will interpret the constitution in a conservative way, and vice versa for the liberal justices. (Mitchel) An example being in the 2000 election, in which the fiasco of Bush’s victory in Florida ended up having to be hand tallied, the Supreme Court intervened and due to the five conservative justices ruling against four liberal justices, the court ruled that the hand tally should cease and that Bush should be elected President. (Mitchel) The final method of explanation is the strategic model, which states that justices make decisions based on they think their peers will vote, and

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

Judicial precedent refers to the sources of law where past decisions made by judges create law for future judges to follow. An example would be the Donoghue vs Stevenson case, where Stevenson had bought ginger beer, and Donoghue had drank it after their been a decomposed snail in it, however their was no charge because she was not in a contract with

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.

The doctrine of Judicial precedent applies the principles of stare decisis which ‘lets the decision stand’. ‘Whenever a new problem arises in law the final decision forms a rule to be followed in all similar cases, making the law more predictable’ making it easier for people to live within the law.

The ratio decidendi means the principles of law on which the decision is founded. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd (1892). The ratio decidendi in this case was that the advertisement was a unilateral contract, whereby, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a promise to perform an obligation. The fact that the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company deposited £1000 with the Alliance Bank demonstrated intent of that promise and therefore it was not a ‘mere puff’. Communication of acceptance of the offer was not necessary in this case as Mrs Carlill accepted the offer from her conduct, in that, she purchased the smoke ball and performed the conditions of using the smoke ball as outlined on the advertisement. It was also established