Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discuss about case law
Tutorial 1: Case Law and Precedent
Question 1
(a)
i. Ratio decidendi
Ratio decidendi means ‘the reason for the decision’. It is the legal rule or principle of law which is established by the Court in deciding a case. Sometimes, it is also defined as material facts added together with the Court’s decision. Material facts are those facts that are legally relevant to the decision making of a case. If the facts are not there or differ, the Court might not make the same decision as before. ii. Obiter dicta
Orbiter dicta means ‘sayings by the way’. It is the unimportant statement of law made by the judge, which will not affect the Court’s decision. This includes statements surrounding the general area of law and discussions of the decision of the
…show more content…
By other means, it is the doctrine of precedent. It is the rule that determines when a particular Court will be bounded to follow the decision of an earlier Court and when it is at liberty to ignore or overrule it. It is necessary to have the doctrine of precedent because it provides consistencies and legal certainties which promotes the fairness and equity. Furthermore, it also provides protection against variations in decision making by the judges.
(b)
i. Distinguishing a case
Distinguishing a case means that we are arguing that the material facts of the present case differ from what has been presented in the earlier case and respectively should not be dealt with on the same principle of the earlier case. By other means, the ratio decidendi of the previous case does not apply. Besides that, the differences noted should be material and be able to affect the Court’s decision. ii. Overruling a case
Overruling a case means that if a decision of another Court is overruled, then the ratio decidendi of that earlier decision is no longer good law. If a decision is overruled, only the ratio decidendi of the earlier case is overruled, the ‘order of the Court’ in that particular case still
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
... be found in Mr. Hill’s case given he position set out by the majority judgement in this case.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
was clear in his dissenting opinion of the current appeal court and the lower court that the area of
Conflicting judicial philosophies define the essence of the nation’s highest court: The Supreme Court. These two conflicting doctrines are judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint occurs when justices attempt to limit their own power by only declaring actions of the other branches unconstitutional when the decision is obvious. Precedent, the concept of stare decisis, is also highly revered by judicial restraint justices. Judicial activism revolves around the idea that justices should “legislate from the bench” by entering into social and political matters.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
-Equity: seen over by the Chancery Court; designed to give relief from strict decisions made by the common law
Something more common is stare decisis, which is a type of methodology, and common law that they use along with interpreting the constitution. It is used so judges have some type of consistency and are bound to their past decisions. Stare decisis there are four primary reasons to follow it, it treats cases the the same, makes the law more predictable, strengthens judicial decision making and furthers stability (Oldfather, 2014). This is important in regards to constitutional interpretation because it is basically saying that judge is also bound to past constitutional interpretation. Some of the precedents produced by stare decisis are bad, but that’s because the system is not perfect. The implementation of precedence is also complicated because you have to find cases that are sufficiently alike and most cases are not identical (Oldfather, 2014). Another significant factor in stare decisis, is that the courts usually feel more comfortable in overruling constitutional precedents than amending the constitution, which is much more difficult. Stare decisis is commonly used in adjudication, probably the most prominent articulation of it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they analyzed if they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, in terms of its workability (Oldfather,
and that there has to be sufficient and accurate reports. of earlier decisions. There are six main elements to the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent which are as follows :- Ratio Decidendi (Ratio): The reason for deciding, this is known as the. legal reason for a Judges decision, the ratio of a case. can sometimes be somewhat difficult to interpret.
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.