The Movie ' The Rain Maker 's ' Bad Faith ' Suite Against Health Insurance Giant Great Benefit Essay

These examples show that there are many flaws in the judicial system, but it doesn’t mean that all cases happen to turn out like this one had.

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.

Today, many political and legal commentators continue to argue the merits of the exclusionary rule. This debate does not run along political ideology divides, as conservatives and liberals find themselves on both sides of the issue. Those who wish to further empower law

It would be impractical for judges to not make law in some situations as both parties in the case would not want the judge to refuse to deal with the case and they would want the matter decided. ‘Judicial decisions are important as a source of law on matters where the government is

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

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.

The panel asks if a complaint was filed against the judge. Since one wasn’t the panel now tells Mr. Mason that since they didn’t feel he was so unethical or unfair to file a complaint but instead filed an open public brief accusing the judge of being unethical. The panel then states to Mr. Mason the steps he should have taken if he felt the judge was unethical, by filing in the Judicial Qualifications Commission and move to recuse if they feel he is unfair.

There are oblivious things in life that restrict us, they are called rules. Nobody prefers to play a game by the guidelines, but there are reasons for them to exist. The purpose is to maintain the fairness of the game. And for that reason, we have professionals like, umpires, referees, and justices who help to maintain the integrity of these procedures. Nobody pays to watch the umpire in a ballgame, but they are needed to enforce the rules. Similarly, a justice is needed to aid a nation comply by the rules. Comparably, Chief Justice John Roberts (Roberts) of the United States Supreme Court is an outstanding example of that. In this article, the author explains why Roberts makes decisions the way that he does even though they are considered constraints by many. The decisions made by justices should be unbiased and non- sympathetic to a particular political party or else the political system will suffer.

Humana, Inc. is a health insurance company from Louisville, Kentucky that started in 1961 by Lawyers Wendell Cherry and David A. Jones, Sr. Humana started as a nursing home where it later become the largest nursing home company in the nation. After the nursing homes they soon began to purchase hospitals entirely for expansion. The name of the company changed to Humana, Inc. two years later. Cherry and Jones continued to expand by purchasing other companies. In 1984, the company began focusing on Health Insurance where it remains to focus on even today. Since 2014, Humana has had over 13 million customers and over 52,000, and a revenue of $41.3 billion that was reported in 2013.

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.

The expectation from our judges that they will always act objectively in making their decisions is correct but only to a certain extent. By using the theories of interpretation and judicial decision-making of both Dworkin and American Legal Realism, it is evident that a balancing act occurs between objective judgments and interpretation and subjective judgments and interpretation. Often, subjective judgments are the most dominant to a large extent. One must look at the ideas of Dworkin in terms of considering that judgments have aspects of both objectivity and subjectivity. One must also look at the ideas of American Legal Realism where subjectivity plays a gigantic role in judgments leaving objectivity with little or no influence

Mr. Bernay mention Judge Cardozo of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, as an example that judges go through different cases a day and having to decide to pick one. How I see that example is that as PR field, no matter what clients we get, we can have a choice to help them or not. Same goes for judges while they decide on a case to work on.