Difference Between Stare Decisis And Legal Precedent

157 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Doctrine of judicial precedent

Legal precedent and stare decisis are two parts of the common law or case law; there is no federal or criminal common law. Legal precedent is a decision that is made in court that could help for deciding outcomes of comparable cases in the future. These decisions are made by trial judges and appellate court judges.
A stare decisis (“to stand by decided cases”) is an opinion of the precedent. Courts refer to the stare decisis when a previous issue has already been brought before the judge and a ruling has already been presented. Generally, the court will follow the previous ruling, but not always. The success of a stare decisi depends on how well the attorney does at proving legal precedent.
Even though legal precedent was put into

Show More
Related

  • Compare And Contrast United States V. Leon

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    United States v. Leon was a U.S. Supreme Court case about drug trafficking, where the Supreme Court created the exception of ?good faith? to the exclusionary rule. In August 1981, in Burbank, California, the California Police Department received an anonymous tip, accusing Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart as drug dealers. Police began watching their homes and followed leads based on the cars that were regularly seen at the homes. The police identified Alberto Leon and Ricardo Del Castillo as also being involved in the trafficking operation. Based on this surveillance and information

    Read More

  • Statsky Case

    646 Words  | 2 Pages

    Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).

    Read More

  • The Attitudinal Model Of Judicial Decision Making

    705 Words  | 2 Pages

    The last model of the judicial decision making is the legal model. The legal model assumes that judges give in to the law when making decisions. If a judge has any personal preferences for an outcome in a case, it is assumed that he or she leaves these preferences aside and defers to the facts of the case or legal standard when making his or her decision.

    Read More

  • Flagiello Vs Pennsylvania

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The principle of stare decisis does not demand that we must follow precedents, which shipwreck justice.”

    Read More

  • Comparison Of Liberal Jurisprudence Vs. Conservative Juurisprudence

    1013 Words  | 3 Pages

    Conservative jurisprudence can be understood as an agenda of conserving existing conditions, upholding restricted rights in cases concerning individual, society, and sexual liberty interests in order to retain in its traditional style as similar in the past as possible whereas liberal jurisprudence place itself with a constitutional theory that expand individual rights. By applying these ideologies in the interpretation of the legislation, it can be said that conservatives will interpret the text as a rulebook to be followed strictly as possible and they are able to justify employing the narrowest level of generality in their analyses of

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ice it when the said sources contain no clear information regarding the topic at hand. In situations like these, the Supreme Court is essentially free to do whatever it wishes, and often exercises judicial activism. Thus, there is a disconnect that exists between the theoretical practice of judicial review, which is reasonable and justifiable, and the actual practice of judicial review that is often used in the Supreme Court, which may potentially allow the Judiciary to surpass the powers granted to it in the Constitution and as stated by Hamilton in Federalist 78. There are two main sides to the debate about how Justices should approach judicial review: the strict constructionists, who advocate for strict adherence to the text of the Constitution when deciding a case, and the loose constructionists, who advocate for more freedom for the judges when deciding a case.

    Read More

  • Impact Of Thurgood Marshall's Impact On Civil Justice

    1181 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint Analysis

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    Majority Opinion- Officially called the Opinion of the Court; announces the Court’s decision in a case and sets out the reasoning upon which it is based

    Read More

  • Judicial Restraint And Judicial Activism?

    1818 Words  | 4 Pages

    Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,

    Read More

  • Amicus Brief - Hawthorne v. State

    827 Words  | 2 Pages

    was clear in his dissenting opinion of the current appeal court and the lower court that the area of

    Read More

  • Legal Research, Writing, And Analysis

    1457 Words  | 3 Pages

    An important point to keep in mind is that all binding decisions are initiated at the highest court at either the federal or state level. These decisions are precedent only in the jurisdiction where the court presides. Stare decisis refers to the practice of the courts adhering to previously rendered decisions. This is especially true involving United States Supreme Court decisions that have binding authority on both the federal and the state courts. Remember that court decisions in the same jurisdiction only have persuasive authority which is not binding.

    Read More

  • Essay On Constitutional Interpretation

    1502 Words  | 4 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • The Problems Created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    “A Binding Precedent is a decided case which a court must follow even though it is considered to have been wrongly decided…” (Terence Ingman, 2002, Page 420). “A Persuasive Precedent is one which is not absolutely binding on a court but which may be applied” (Terence Ingman, 2002, Page 420) Bromley London Borough Council V Greater London Council (1982), Searose Ltd V Seatrain (UK) Ltd (1981). There are certain elements that Judicial Precedent is dependant upon, they are that the material facts of the case must be the same, the principle must be a proposition of law, it must form part of the Ratio (see below) and that there has to be sufficient and accurate reports of earlier decisions.

    Read More

  • Judicial Precedent

    1344 Words  | 3 Pages

    again the problem with this is that not every case is the same and can

    Read More

  • Characteristics Of Legal Positivism

    1094 Words  | 3 Pages

    Principles he argued acted not merely as a guide but also as a restraint upon judges; he argued this was crucial to ensure both legal certainty and to reduce the prospect of judges acting outwith their powers for justification. Judges therefore would be expected to weigh in legal principles, as well as legal rules when reaching their judgment. This is a somewhat accurate analysis, particularly when the concept of stare decisis is considered, which is the doctrine where courts of equal or lower standing are bound previous court decisions on similar principles. In practice this binds the judiciary to past legal principles in most cases; Dworkin however failed to account for when judges ought to depart from established principles. In particular where judges feel it would be detrimental to continue to follow past precedent. The following example sets out a case where judges broke with past principle after they felt the existing precedent was

    Read More

More about Difference Between Stare Decisis And Legal Precedent

Open Document