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.
If faced with a binding judicial precedent, a court has a number of ways to respond to it, and may use the following legal devices and mechanisms: [10] Applying - simply following the precedent, and using its ratio in the current case. Approval - showing approval of the earlier case, without necessarily applying it. [11]
The doctrine of precedent developed during the 12th and 13th centuries, [52] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. [ 53 ] The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning .
Judicial precedent (aka: case law, or judge-made law) is based on the doctrine of stare decisive, and mostly associated with jurisdictions based on the English common law, but the concept has been adopted in part by Civil Law systems. Precedent is the accumulated principles of law derived from centuries of decisions.
Only the reason for the decision of the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning may be adopted in an argument. Apart from the rules of procedure for precedent, the weight given to any reported judgment may depend on the reputation of both the reporter and the judges. [7]
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Segregated facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional under the doctrine of separate but equal. As long as the separate facilities are equal in quality, then such separation is not unconstitutional. (De facto overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954)) Missouri ex rel. Gaines v.
That precedent, stemming from a 1984 case involving the oil company named Chevron, stated that judges must defer to a US agency’s "reasonable" interpretations of ambiguously written laws.
The rule of binding precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes ...