As for the Supreme Court using other Supreme Court cases or a lower court referring to a higher court decision, that happens all the time. It is in bulk and its complexity makes it increasingly difficult to find the law. Suppose that in a certain case facts A, B and C exist, and suppose that the court finds that facts B and C are material and fact A immaterial, and then reaches conclusion X e.
Stare decisis is a policy adopted by the court to stand by a precedent. The relief or tool available to a judge who wishes to avoid following a previous decision which they would otherwise be bound to follow is Judicial precedent conclusion distinguishing.
Bound by own decision Normally, even the appellate court is bound by its own decision in a previous case. First, there needs to be an undisputed and accepted hierarchy of courts with one court having the supreme authority over all the other courts of the land.
It may also allow persons generally to order their affairs and come to settlements with a certain amount of confidence. Also the lapse of time meaning thereby the years that have passed after the judgement and its relevance in present times.
If yes, then the next step is to find out the degrees of similarity that exists between the problems. As per the doctrine of stare decisis, a court lower in the hierarchy follows and honours the findings of law made by a court higher in the hierarchy.
How significant are the differences? If the similarities are found to be significant then next it needs to be analysed whether Judicial precedent conclusion same principle that was applied to the previously solved problem can be applied successfully to solve the problem at hand.
The number of judges constituting the bench, their eminence and the majority strength in the decision a unanimous decision is considered more valuable. It also helps save unnecessary litigation. These cases could be cases that are decided by lower courts, or courts equivalent in the hierarchy or in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, judicial bodies of the world etc.
Hierarchy Not every court is expected to listen to the judgments passed by another court. An advantage of distinguishing is that it helps to keep judicial precedent and the law flexible.
The judgement is the speech made by the judge who has made the Judicial precedent conclusion on the case, and it is split into two parts. Only because the fact looks apparently similar does not necessarily mean that both the cases should be decided in the same manner.
It is obvious that the Judge has in every case to decide for himself which of the circumstances of the alleged precedent were relevant to the decision and whether the circumstances of his own case are in their essentials similar.
There is much more. Here due to a significant oversight, an important statute was overlooked and this affected the decision significantly. A system that was truly flexible could not at the same time be certain because no one can predict when and how legal development will take place.
It removes any element of ambiguity regarding the authority of the binding precedents and enables lower courts to follow the decisions of higher courts unanimously.
The cases exemplify the law in great detail, therein lies another weakness of case law. In this case, the cry of injustice rightly goes up against the responsible agent or group; and unless that agent or group can establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the individuals concerned and their circumstances, he or they will be guilty as charged.
The first is called per incuriam. This is because the previous judgment had set a precedent for the lower court and the lower court is bound to follow the precedent as such, as long as the case can be treated on a similar platform like the one decided earlier by the higher court… Read more in the complete solution PDF document at the end of this page.
In this paper the researcher is going to discuss the judicial method of legal precedents and the fundamental issues raised by following this method.
There need never have been a specific case decided on the same or similar issues in order for a court to take notice of customary or traditional precedent in its deliberations. The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent which a lower court cannot overturn.
It should be noted that there is often more than one judge hearing a case, and so there may be many judgements on one case. It is obvious that the Judge has in every case to decide for himself which of the circumstances of the alleged precedent were relevant to the decision and whether the circumstances of his own case are in their essentials similar.Understanding The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent.
The doctrine of judicial precedent comes from the principle of stare decisis which means ‘stand by decisions already made’ and requires that like cases are treated alike. And in doing so provides consistency and continuity in the application of the law.
In conclusion, the HRA has. In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.
This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. . A Judicial Precedent Essay Words | 2 Pages A Judicial Precedent The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis, refers to the fact that, the decision of a higher court will be binding on a court lower than its hierachy.
The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system. The doctrine refers to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court will be binding on a court lower that it in that hierarchy.
In general terms this.
A precedent or authority in common law parlance means a previously decided case which establishes a rule or principle that may be utilized by a court or a judicial body in. The Definition Of The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent Law General Essay.
University of London. Common Law Reasoning and Institutions. Student Number: Candidate Number: Introduction: The doctrine of judicial precedent is mainly stand for the certainty of the law.
Usually the judges are bound to follow the previous decisions.Download