The Reasoning Of Common Law

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

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.

b. From this, the principle may influential to individual justices that can compare the current case to that of a previous ruling, and in result the justice may choose the same ruling that was given to the similar case.

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

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.

Common law became into effect after the Norman Conquest (A.D. 1066) consolidated their hold on newly won territory. One way was to take control over the legal/court systems. When this happen

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.

1. Stare Decisis/Precedent - A stare decisis is defined by the Criminal Justice Today textbook as "A legal principle require that, in subsequent cases on similar issues of law and fact, courts be bound by their own earlier decisions and by those of higher courts having jurisdiction between them. The term literally means "standing by decided matters" (Schmalleger 111). It is known as the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decisions are authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. It is also known as the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions, which are known as precedents, on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on

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

This persuasive precedent was followed in the case of R v Gotts (1992) where a defendant charged with attempted murder tried to use the defence of duress in the Court of Appeal. The ratio decidendi of R v Gotts (1992) then formed its own binding precedent.

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law

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.