Free Stare decisis Essays and Papers

Law of Precedent One of the major considerations on how someone is tried in a court of law depends upon the previous convictions of similar cases. This law of precedent (stare decisis) was founded hundreds of years ago as part of our common law. The literal translation of stare decisis is "that like cases be decided alike." Precedents in law play a fundamental role in the judicial processes of Canada. From stealing a loaf of bread ranging to murder in the first degree, there are precedents for

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

according to [Marbury v. Madison, 1803] if “the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, judges have the rights, authority and duty to make law by cr... ... middle of paper ... ...emieux/precedent-stare-decisis [4 DEC 2013] Chononu (2012) Explain Judicial Precedent and the types of Precedent [Online] Available: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Explain-Judicial-Precedent-And-The-Types-1225193.html [4 DEC 2013] Legislation vs Common Law [Online] Available:

of a similar case to find a solution to the case before them § The hierarchy of the courts is also important to know as the lower courts must follow the past decisions of the higher courts- also known as biding precedent. Stare decisis. § Jp is known as stare decisis where judges extend and modify existing rules. § This means `stand by what has been decided. § The system of JP allows for consistency and gives sufficient flexibility for law to develop. Ration Descidendi. § Judge

the decision will be reversed by the higher courts. All these rules can be summarised as the doctrine of precedent or the doctrine of stare decisis. There

English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent. The doctrine of Judicial precedent applies the principles of stare decisis which ‘lets the decision stand’. ‘Whenever a new problem arises in law the final decision forms a rule to be followed in

In forming a case brief, a legal professional or law student must be able to identify the key areas or elements of a case. These are normal sections of a typical case in no particular order; although many cases will follow some semblance of a “typical” format and make finding these elements less difficult. Facts: In most cases, the facts are decided at the trial level courts which are the lowest level and most familiar courts people use verses the intermediate or appellate level or the high court’s

prior decisions of superior courts. One level includes stare decisis, this means to stand by what has been previously decided in a previous case and that this decision should be kept to and that you should in no way try to unsettle the established. This can benefit the system of common law because it supports the idea of fairness and it therefore provides certainty in the law and also consistency in the law. Another aspect of stare decisis that concerns the court hierarchy is that decisions

separated into the three Latin named sectors which define a judgement:- Stare Decisis, (the literal interpretation 'let the decision stand'). This is the verdict of the case, upon which sentencing occurs in criminal cases and compensation is awarded in civil. This term expresses the principle of precedent, that one should 'stand by' ones previous decisions. For example in the case of R V Collins, ex parte S, the Stare Decisis would be that S won the case. Ratio Decidendi, this is what forms

The power of precedent to determine legal outcomes is a cornerstone of legal authority. Stare decisis is a prominent example of the reach of Latin diction in modern legal tradition, as it describes the doctrine of precedent that gives binding power to decided points of law. The importance of deciding current cases with relevantly similar facts analogously to precedent cases is essential for a stable body of law. In the current case between Liz Shaffer and Mary Vassar, controlling cases in the jurisdiction

contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation. The doctrine of Judicial Precedent operates based on the principle of Stare Decisis, inter alia, to stand by past decisions to establish certainty, fairness and consistency as well as predictability. The rationale of this doctrine was made by Parke J in the early case of Mirehouse v Rennell [1833], where Parke J had stated

reports. This process still occurs today, but is now systemised and is controlled by Councils of Legal Education in each jurisdiction (Williams 1998). In the Australian legal system, a system of common law (case law), the doctrine of precedent is stare decisis (to go by what has been said), meaning that courts are strictly bound to follow past decisions of courts higher in the court hierarchy. Decisions from other hierarchies, for example, courts located in international jurisdictions, may be used as

of thumb’ judges follow in deciding their judgements. This involves taking into account long-standing precedents, which only matured from the nineteenth century. A fundamental element of common law systems is the application of the principle of stare decisis , which means ‘let the decision stand’. This in practice means that judges in lower courts are bound to decide cases using existing legal principles made by superior courts. Therefore, there is a hierarchical structure in the English courts. The

Is Judicial Precedent an efficient System of Lawmaking? Judicial precedent often referred to as case law, is one of the main sources of English law. Its roots go back to the early common laws of the country. It is based on the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta morvere, which loosely translated means, stand by what has been decided and do not unsettle the established. In order for the judicial precedent system to work, an accurate detailed method of reporting cases is of great importance

judicial precedent. b) How far is it true to say judges are bound by decisions in earlier cases? A) Judicial precedent is where the past decisions of the judges create law for future judges to follow. English precedent is based on the Latin, stare decisis, meaning stand by what has been said in the past. This allows the rules system to be consistent: like cases treated alike, and it is just, as people can decide on a course of conduct knowing what the legal consequences will be. Judicial Precedent

Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial

Explain the application of judicial precedent in the court (P1) Judicial precedent is where past decisions of judges create law for future judges to follow. The judicial precedent runs through the court hierarchy that anything that the Supreme Court says on a case is binding to the lower courts that have similarities to a case. The courts follow cases from law reporting. Law reports have been around since the 13th century written on paper however and issue with is that the cases aren’t accurate.

The decisions made by the courts contain two types of branches: ‘ratio decidendi’ and ‘obiter dictum’. Ratio decidendi is based upon the fact that a judgement comes for applying the facts to law and thus the reason for the decision handed down, which is now binding on all inferior courts. Obiter dictums are statements made ‘by the way’, as such they are not binding. Nevertheless, it has been criticised that some judges have taken upon themselves in making law. Subsequently, questioning the separation

Section A 1.(a) Common law is the order of jurisprudence that is expressed as the doctrine of judicial precedent, the law under which the lower courts necessarily obey the decisions of the higher courts, instead of statutory laws. The decision or judgement of a judge may fall into two parts: the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision) and obiter dictum (something said by the way). RATIO DECIDENDI - The ratio decidendi of a case is the principle of law on which a decision is based. When a judge

INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has an unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus the real role of a judge in any legal system