The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis is fundamental to the English legal system. The peculiarities of the English legal system include: Courts may choose to obey the precedents of international jurisdiction, but this is not an application of the doctrine of stare decisis, as foreign judgments are not binding. Rather, a foreign judgment that is obeyed on the basis of the validity of its reasoning is called a persuasive authority – indicating that its effect is limited to the persuasive nature of the reasons it provides. Researchers have recently attempted to apply network theory to precedents to determine which precedent is more important or authoritative, and how the court`s interpretations and priorities have changed over time. [28] 1) n. a previously notified opinion of a court of appeal which determines the rule of law (authority) for the future on the same point of law decided in the previous judgment. Thus, “the rule set out in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter sets a precedent for the case before the courts in this case.” The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis (2) adj., as in the term “condition precedent”, which is a situation that must exist before a contracting party must perform a contract. Once a case has been decided, the same plaintiff cannot sue the same defendant again for a claim arising from the same facts.
The law requires plaintiffs to ask all questions on the table in a single case and not divide the case. For example, in a car accident, the plaintiff cannot sue first for property damage and then for assault in a separate case. This is called res judicata or claim preclusion (“res judicata” is the traditional name that dates back centuries; the name was changed to “claim preclusion” in the United States at the end of the 20th century). The exclusion of claims applies regardless of whether the plaintiff wins or loses the previous case, even if the last case raises a different legal theory, even the second claim is unknown at the time of the first case. The exceptions are extremely limited, for example, if the two actions for damages must necessarily be brought in different courts (for example, one action may be brought exclusively at the federal level and the other exclusively at the state level). In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal matter that establishes a principle or rule. [1] This principle or rule is then applied by the court or other judicial authorities when deciding subsequent cases involving similar issues or facts. [1] The use of precedents ensures the predictability, stability, fairness and effectiveness of the law. The Latin term stare decisis is the doctrine of the former. [2] A case decided by a panel of several judges could lead to a split decision.
Although only the majority opinion is considered a precedent, a judge who is in a minority may always publish a dissenting opinion. Common trends in dissent include: A lawsuit brought by a plaintiff against a defendant based on a claim that the defendant failed to comply with a legal duty that caused harm to the plaintiff. As Colin Starger has pointed out, the contemporary rule of stare decisis, derived from Brandeis` innovative dissent in Burnet, then split into strong and weak notions following the disagreement between Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall of Payne v. Tennessee (1991). [39] Strong design requires “special justification” to prevail over contested precedents beyond the fact that precedent was “ill-decided,” while weak design states that a precedent may be overturned if it suffers from “bad reasoning.” [39] With respect to civil actions in “equity” and not in “law”. In English legal history, courts of “law” could order the payment of damages and could offer no other remedy (see damages). A separate “fairness” tribunal could order someone to do something or stop something (p. e.g., injunction).
In U.S. jurisprudence, federal courts have both legal and just power, but the distinction is always important. For example, a jury trial is generally available in “legal cases,” but not in “fairness” cases. The precedent is a legal principle created by a judicial decision that is an example or authority for judges who later decide similar matters.3 min read In the federal legal systems of several common law countries, particularly the United States, it is relatively common for various lower-level court systems (e.g., state courts in the United States and Australia, provincial courts in Canada) to view decisions in other jurisdictions in the same country as a compelling precedent. In the United States in particular, the adoption of a legal doctrine by a large number of other state judicial authorities is considered very convincing evidence that such a doctrine is preferred. A good example is the introduction of comparative negligence in Tennessee (which replaces contributory negligence as a complete barrier to recovery) with the Tennessee Supreme Court`s decision McIntyre v. Balentine (by which time all U.S. jurisdictions except Tennessee, five other states, and the District of Columbia had comparative negligence systems in place). In addition, the Erie doctrine in U.S.
law requires federal courts sitting in diversity cases to apply the substantive law of the state, but in a manner consistent with how the court believes the state`s highest court would rule in this case. Because such decisions are not binding on state courts, but are often very well-reasoned and helpful, state courts quite often cite federal interpretations of state law as a compelling precedent, although it is also quite common for a state high court to reject a federal court`s interpretation of its jurisprudence. Non-publication of opinions or unpublished opinions are court decisions that cannot be cited as precedent because the judges issuing the opinion consider the cases to be less relevant to the previous ones. Selective publishing is the legal process in which a judge or judge of a court decides whether or not to publish a decision in a journalist. “Unpublished” federal appeal decisions are published in the Federal Annex. Publication is the power of a court to make an order or notice previously published without publication. There are disadvantages and advantages to a binding precedent, as academics and lawyers have noted. The Court has never felt compelled to follow precedents. In constitutional cases where correction depends on amendments rather than legislation, the Court has exercised freely throughout its history its power to review the basis of its constitutional decisions. Proponents of the primacy of precedent as a source of constitutional importance emphasize the legitimacy of decisions that respect the principles set out in previous and well-reasoned written opinions.13FootnoteBobbitt, op.
cit. cit., note 2, p. 42. They argue that compliance with the principle stare decisis14FootnoteStare decisis refers to the doctrine of case law, according to which a tribunal must follow previous judicial decisions when the same points recur in a dispute. Black`s Law Dictionary 1626 (10th edition 2014). and the adoption of decisions based on previous cases supports the Court`s role as a neutral, impartial and consistent decision-maker.15 See Gerhardt, op. cit. cit., note 4, pp. 70-71 (discussion of arguments in support of the use of precedents).
The use of precedents in constitutional interpretation is intended to increase the predictability, consistency and stability of the law for judges, legislators, lawyers and political powers and institutions based on the decisions of the Court16FootnoteEpstein and Walker, op. cit. cit., note 3, p. 29; Gerhardt, op. cit. cit., note 4, pp. 85-87. prevent the Court from setting aside all but the most misguided decisions,17Footnote Henry Paul Monaghan, Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Colum. L.
723, 749-50 (1988); Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Stare Decisis and the Constitution: An Essay on Constitutional Methodology, 76 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 570, 585 (2001). and allow constitutional norms to evolve slowly over time.18FootnoteGregory E. Maggs and Peter J. Smith, Constitutional Law: A Contemporary Approach 19 (3rd edition 2015). Stare decisis reduces the number and scope of legal issues that the court must resolve in a dispute.
It is therefore a time saver for judges and litigants. Once a court clarifies a particular point of law, it has set a precedent. Thanks to stare decisis, claims can be rejected quickly and efficiently, as disputes can be resolved using rules and principles that have been established previously. Stare decisis can therefore encourage parties to settle cases amicably, thereby increasing the efficiency of the judicial system. [30] The use of precedents has led to the publication of legal reports containing case decisions. Lawyers and judges conduct legal research in these reports to find precedents. They seek to determine whether the facts of this case correspond exactly to previous cases. If so, the application of a precedent may be clear. However, if the facts are not accurate, previous cases can be distinguished and their precedents ignored.
In general, the higher courts do not exercise direct control over proceedings pending before the lower courts, as they cannot at any time, on their own initiative (sua sponte), appeal against the annulment or annulment of the decisions of the lower courts. Normally, litigants are responsible for challenging judgments (including those that clearly violate applicable case law) in higher courts. If a judge acts against a precedent and the case is not contested, the decision will stand. Some cases of non-compliance are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare show of unity in a Supreme Court opinion on legal activism, Justice Stevens wrote that a district court “engages in a kind of untenable legal activism” when it “refused to follow a `precedent setting` set by the Supreme Court.
