Essay on Judicial Precedent

The source of law known as a judicial precedent (also known as a common law or case made law) is a form of Law that requires no legislation as it is considered on a case by case basis based upon the principal of ‘Stare Decisis’. The Stare decisis is

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.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

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.

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

Stare Decisis plays a large role in Judicial Restraint. Stare Decisis is sticking to an established ruling that was handed down by past judges or jurors. A form of judicial restraint is called the political question doctrine, and it is significant in understanding this interpretation of the law. The political question doctrine is when a court acknowledges that the constitution is violated but does not decide to act. There are plenty of examples of Judicial Restraint throughout our history but the one that stands out the most in my mind is Gore Vs. Bush. In this case the Florida supreme courts methods of recounting the presidential ballots was considered and ruled as having violated the Equal Protection Laws which is under the fourteenth amendment in a presidential election. Everyone seems to know that something wrong was done, but no one really understands what happened. Before this debate I didn’t realize that this was an example of Judicial Restraint. And this is why I caint agree with either interpretations of the law.

xiii) Influence of EU ensures that altering UK constitution is hard – cannot be incompatible

The Supreme Court, which does overrule its precedent from time to time, does not need to do a lengthy analysis of each precedent’s viability in every case. Rather, through its certiorari jurisdiction (certiorari – an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court), it selects cases and issues that allow it to reconsider precedent on its own time. When the Court decides that a previous decision may be in jeopardy, it often asks the parties to brief whether precedent should be overruled.4 The Court must still confront petitions questioning precedent, but it can dispose of these quickly and without explanation if it so chooses through a simple denial of certiorari. This shows that horizontal stare decisis is upheld in the

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

Judicial review may well be comprehended in the setting of two particular—yet parallel—lawful frameworks, common law and regular law. Furthermore by two unmistakable hypotheses on majority rules system and by means of a government ought to be put together, legislative matchless quality and detachment of forces. Regular law judges are viewable as wellsprings of law. These judges are also equipped for making new lawful standards and dismissing lawful guidelines that are no more legitimate. In the common law convention, judges are seen as the individuals who apply the law, with no energy to make or obliterate legitimate guidelines.

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.

After the 1800 election where Thomas Jefferson won, President John Adams proceed to fill the judicial branch with members of his own party, the Federalists. In response, Jefferson's party of the Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800. This act created new position on the bench for Federalist judges. The Supreme Court was threatened with impeachment if they overturned the repeal (Marbury v. Madison,1803).

Time-saving. Where principles have been established, cases with familiar facts are unlikely to go through a lengthy process of litigation. The main disadvantages of the doctrine of judicial precedent are; -