Precedent Case Study

1187 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Nature of judicial precedents

3. A precedent is defined as “a legal norm established in court cases that is then applied to future cases dealing with the same legal questions.” A precedent sets the tone for the cases that follow. It is important that a precedent is strong. A strong precedent allows for the courts to act accordingly and justly towards similar cases (Bianco and Canon, 2015).
A jurisdiction is defined as “the sphere of a court’s legal authority to hear and decide cases” (Bianco & Canon, 2015). This is important because people would want to bring a case to the court that would be most suitable to their case. For example, if you were filing a case for harassment in the workplace, you would go to the state or federal court. This is can be decided on which court …show more content…

The first would be Marbury v Madison in 1803. The Constitutional principle involved was the separation of powers. The judiciary. The decision of this case was important because established the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review. It also strengthened the judiciary in relation to other branches of government. The second case would be McCulloch versus Maryland in 1819. The Constitutional principle involved was federalism. The decision of this case was important because it supported the use of the elastic clause to expand federal power. It also established the principle of national supremacy, that the Constitution and federal overrule state laws when the two conflict (Bianco & Canon, …show more content…

As the president is the head of the executive branch, he has the authority to make policy changes that would make a significant impact on society. One example of this would be the time when “…. President Obama signed an order barring federal contractors from retaliating against employees who disclose their salaries as a measure to help close the pay gap between men and women” (Bianco & Canon, 2015). Additionally, because of these powers, the president may not have the power to declare war. This is important because the War Powers Act was put in place. In order to properly declare war, the president has to first identify a clear and imminent threat and he has 60 days to move troops into an

Show More
Related

  • Case Law Case Study

    1560 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • War Powers Act Essay

    479 Words  | 1 Pages

    The president can declare war but must consult with Congress and keep giving congress updates regularly which must be given to the speaker of the house until the U.S armed forces are no longer apart of conflict or have been removed from conflict. So because the President must report to Congress it does not have total power and the war power act was created to check the power of the president so as it checks the power in the president that he can not have completely to having total control over the United States Armed Forces.

    Read More

  • Hypothetical Case Studies

    1091 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kyle, a twenty-five year old male presents for assistance in managing an irrational and persistent fear of sunlight causing significant stress in his life. The thought of going outside or skin cancer brings on extreme feelings of anxiety and panic to him. This specific phobia has been present in his life for a year and has caused him to avoid sunlight at all cost. This natural environment specific phobia has simply forced him into home isolation during the day, to avoid the sun. He will leave his home at night to go to the grocery store and his mailbox. He has been out of work for the past year, leaving him with excess financial stress as well.

    Read More

  • The Executive Branch of the United States Government

    1066 Words  | 3 Pages

    Once the President is elected, they assume the role of Commander in Chief as they take office. Along with this position, perhaps the most authoritative power is command and operation of the armed forces however, the power to declare war lies conclusively on Congress. Essentially, the President is trusted to defend the nation from attacks or threats and as stated in the Constitution, to maintain the peace of the Unites States The original drafters of the Constitution illustrated the subject of war as a dual power divided amongst the President and Congress. First the President, under the clause to defend the nation, can act and essentially wage war, but not without the cons...

    Read More

  • Legal Research, Writing, And Analysis

    1457 Words  | 3 Pages

    The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant a hearing. The federal and the state court system have the same basic structure. Each consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The Federal Court of Appeals has thirteen (13) circuits which cover most states except the District of Columbia. The federal system also has specialty courts such as the Court of Federal Claims and the United States Tax Court.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review

    2210 Words  | 5 Pages

    Supreme Court is the highest federal court relative to circuit courts. As a result of this status, the Supreme Court essentially has the final say when it comes to any division involving the court. The Supreme Court also is given the power to judge whether federal, state, and local governments are properly abiding by the law. According to civilrights.org, 2/3 of the cases the Supreme Court dealt with were appealed from lower federal courts and 1/3 were appealed from state supreme courts.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Violation Of Constitutional Rights Violations

    198 Words  | 1 Pages

    In matters of jurisdiction, it is set trite that jurisdiction is everything and without it, no Court

    Read More

  • Difference Between Stare Decisis And Legal Precedent

    157 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Common Law in Australia

    860 Words  | 2 Pages

    Common law is the law made by judges when deciding a certain case before the court. The reasoning the judge applies becomes a precedent, to be followed by other lower courts in future matters of similarity. This is the basis for the doctrine of precedent. A precedent is either a binding precedent, the reason for a decision of a higher court that must be followed by a court of lower status in the same hierarchy; or a persuasive precedent, meaning a reason for a decision of another court that is not binding, and should only be considered for its persuasive value. It is the role of the judge in the common law system to develop and expand the common law where he or she sees fit. It is paramount for judges to base their decisions on cases on judicial precedents. The system of precedent can only operate effectively if the respective precedents are recorded. From as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century, judges produced significant cases in law reports. This process still occurs today, but is now systemised and is controlled by Councils of Legal Education in each jurisdiction (Williams 1998).

    Read More

  • Common Law And Legal Reasoning

    2073 Words  | 5 Pages

    The precedent is legally binding on future cases with similar facts or issues. Judicial precedent refers to the source of law where past decisions of judges create law for future judges to follow. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, precedent is defined as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.”

    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

  • Law Case Study

    1491 Words  | 3 Pages

    Two main sources of law in the common law system are statutes and judicial decisions. The UK’s law inherited from the authority of courts which developed over the centuries, following the ‘stare decisis’ doctrine which built the stability and certainty in the law. This law survived for over a thousand years even in the absence of the statutory regulations in some areas. However, the Parliament as the supreme law-making body has the power to override or change current case law through the legislation but its power has been significantly weakened since signing the European Community Act in 1972. The membership covers some important areas as communication, trade and the human rights therefore influencing domestic law significantly. (OU, 2014, Unit 4)

    Read More

  • Presidential Leadership

    856 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is a known fact that the United States presidents do not have many formal powers. A president cannot "make" Congress do anything. He cannot order Supreme Court around and he cannot ignore the interest groups. In order for a president to achieve his political agenda, he must use his powers of persuasion. For example, for a president to get the military to act in a certain matter, or for a congressman to vote in his favor a president must be able to persuade them to do so. In order to be able to persuade, a president...

    Read More

  • Court Decisions Affecting Public Schools

    295 Words  | 1 Pages

    The concept “precedent” is an important part of the principles of law established by courts. This concept stated that a case or issue decided by a court can help answer any other future legal questions. It has big implications for the law and surely in decisions affecting the education system. The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis. According to La Morte (2012) “under the doctrine of stare decicis, for instance, a court may stand by precedent and thereby not disturb a settled point of law” (p. 9).

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Foreign Policy

    1526 Words  | 4 Pages

    Although the separation of foreign policy powers between the Congress and President are outlined in the Constitution, it seems like the President is the one who holds the higher authority. While the power to declare war resides with the Congress, the underlying power the President has to send troops anywhere in the country without the approval of Congress has proven to be more overbearing than the powers that Congress have. Not to say that Congress is completely uninvolved in foreign policies, Congress plays its role when the President acts out and proposes something that would not sit well with the people or the other countries. This is attempted to be accomplished through the War Powers Act but eventually did not end up limiting the President but instead had him find loopholes so that he may still send troops without Congressional approval. In the end, the President still has the most authority since he is the one in control of the troops and can direct them as he pleases. This is why I believe the President holds more power in foreign policy when compared to the

    Read More

More about Precedent Case Study

Open Document