Doctrine of judicial precedent

This Article affirms the view that judicial power includes a doctrine of precedent, without relying solely upon an originalist interpretation of Article III. A long-standing tradition has viewed precedent as a necessary starting point for judicial decision. When a court departs from this core idea, it violates the essential function of the judiciary to treat like cases alike or explain the difference. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes of modern legal theory, respect for precedent is poised for a comeback.

Doctrine of judicial precedent

What is Judicial Precedent? The words are an abbreviation of a Latin maxim, stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means that one stands by decisions and does not disturb settled points.

It is widely recognised in developed legal systems. Hahlo and Kahn describe this deference of the law for precedent as a manifestation of the general human tendency to have respect for experience. They explain why the doctrine of stare decisis is so important, saying: The maintenance of the certainty of the law and of equality before it, the satisfaction of legitimate expectations, entail a general duty of Judges to follow the legal rulings in previous judicial decisions.

The individual litigant would feel himself unjustly treated if a past ruling applicable to his case were not followed where the material facts were the same.

This authority given to past judgments is called the doctrine of precedent.

Search form

It enables the citizen, if necessary with the aid of practising lawyers, to plan his private and professional activities with some degree of assurance as to their legal effects; it prevents the dislocation of rights, particularly contractual and proprietary ones, created in the belief of an existing rule of law; it cuts down the prospect of litigation; it keeps the weaker Judge along right and rational paths, drastically limiting the play allowed to partiality, caprice or prejudice, thereby not only securing justice in the instance but also retaining public confidence in the judicial machine through like being dealt with alike.

Certainty, predictability, reliability, equality, uniformity, convenience: All information contained herein does not constitute legal advice in any form or manner nor is it intended. All legal advice must be obtained or gained from a consultation with a qualified lawyer.

Doctrine of judicial precedent

The views and opinions expressed are those of the cited authors and not those of the publishers of iGazette.For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression.

Doctrine of judicial precedent

The doctrine of judicial precedent means that judges can refer back to previous decisions to help decide similar cases where the law and facts are alike. This doctrine is concerned with the influence and value of past decisions of case law and the judge's prior legal experience.

According to Salmond, the doctrine of precedent has two meanings, namely (1) in a loose sense precedent includes merely reported case-law which may be cited and follows by the court, (2) in its strict sense, precedent means that case-law which not only has a great binding authority.

The doctrine of binding precedent refers to past cases or case report. It refers to judicial decision of the court which is referred by the latter court as a guide to decide future cases as similar facts and situation.

Mar 25,  · Stare decisis, from the Latin meaning "to stand by that which is decided," is a judicial doctrine, which provides that precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts ('Lectric). The doctrine of stare decisis has developed in common-law legal systems, which enable judges to create law through judicial interpretation.

The doctrine of precedent, a fundamental principle of English Law is a form of reasoning and decision making formed by case law. It says that precedents not only have persuasive authority but also must be followed when similar circumstances arise.

Judicial Precedent | leslutinsduphoenix.come