Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...
overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning; distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis; establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent as a source of law (one of the defining features of common law legal systems). [42] [15] While Common law systems place great weight on precedent, [90] civil law judges tend to give less weight to judicial precedent. [91]
A notable example of when the court has overturned its precedent is the case of R v Jogee, where the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that it and the other courts of England and Wales had misapplied the law for nearly 30 years.
Opinion: The dangerous precedent set by Trump’s indictment in Georgia. Opinion by David Orentlicher and Eve Hanan. August 26, 2023 at 12:43 PM. Editor’s Note: ...
One of the first noteworthy cases arising in this early stage was Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996). The Inset court likened the company's use of the Internet to a continuous advertisement targeting customers in all states, and established an extraordinarily broad approach for Internet jurisdiction cases.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".