Stare Decisis And 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).

Stare Desis is Latin for “Standing by decided matter.” According to the Legal Dictionary, the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the precedent law, began in 12th century England, when King Henry II established the common law. According to stare decisis the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or Supreme Court become obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts which means that whatever the higher courts say is usually what the lower courts have to follow. It is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it looked at the case that allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953. Brown v. Board of Education was a case that took place 1951. In the case thirteen parents filed a civil law suit in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, regarding their 20 children. The plaintiffs, which is the parents of the children, demanded that the school district take away its policy of racial segregation that was set by the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that the children would have separate facilities but would still be equal (which they never really were). After a long and unsuccessful road with the lower courts, the case was taken to the U.S.

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.

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

The three different models of judicial decision making are the legal, the attitudinal, and the strategic. These three different explanations have been identified by political scientists as the way judges make decisions about a case (Geer 514).

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.

By not overruling, court is in fact honoring a precedent previously held. Precedent is reflected in the obligation of lower courts to honor decisions made by higher courts (Vertical) and the binding of judges by decisions of earlier judges in similar matters (Horizontal/ Stare Decisis).

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.

Court decision rules and help make the outcome of case law. The important of case law is it can be interprets with statues, regulation, constitutional provisions and other case law. (Miller, 2017). Judges decisions which are made in previous cases can make a case law. Case laws decisions can come from civil lawsuit, state court, local court and federal court. For example, if I had file a civil lawsuit against someone about an incident and win the case. A few years later, somebody else has a similar incident, but loses their case. The court the court must use the previous court’s decision in applying the law.

In this case study, I will explore the concept of stare decisis and wherether it is in exorable command. I will be explaining what the court means when it say that” stare decisis is not an inexorable command”. Also what it would mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare decisis actually was “inexorable command”.

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.

n criminal law, the mens rea refers to the defendant's state of mind at the time of their crime and there are several levels reflecting the need to have a particular mens rea for the offence committed. For example, in murder or a S:18 offence in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea present must be that of specific intent, which is where the defendant desired that particular outcome of their actions. However, it was held in R v Cunningham 1982, that the intention to cause serious harm was enough to satisfy the mens rea for murder. This shows that, where murder cases are concerned, that it is relatively easy to prove the required mens rea and in doing so the concept of fault is often satisfied. This is once again shown in oblique

The judges in the lower courts are bound to follow previous decision of the higher courts. It is an essential component of the common law as it is important of adequate law reporting. It is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision-making.