Precedent by Legal

There are three ways to argue that precedents should be understood: [6] (1) (1) as establishing rules, (2) as applying the underlying principles, and (3) as deciding after weighing the reasons. A precedent can be used in a court decision when it usually coincides exactly with a case before the court. They also have the binding power to maintain the balance of fair and stable justice, because in this case the law has been solemnly declared and established. As regards the second point, one of the peculiarities of the distinction is that it frustrates the normal justifications of the rules, namely to treat a category of cases in a certain way despite the individual differences between them, which leads to a gain in predictability and transparency in the decision-making process. Instead, the subsequent court is free to avoid the result indicated by the previous relationship, as long as it can find a factual difference between the two cases that limits the previous relationship, while supporting the result in the earlier case. Moreover, this power is conferred not only on courts with the same level of authority as the one setting the precedent (as is the case for the annulment of the decision), but on any court in the judicial hierarchy. Thus, in England, the Court of Appeal cannot overturn a decision of the House of Lords (and not even its own decisions normally), but it is free to distinguish a decision of the House of Lords, even if the case before it falls within the decision of the House of Lords. Thus, from the perspective of jurisprudence, the courts below have the power to restrict the rules made by the higher courts as long as the narrower rule still supports the result achieved in the earlier case. It is not clear why subordinate courts should have the power to restrict the decisions of higher courts in this particularly limited manner. “In law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a particular law, has the force and authority that a judge can give it, thus greatly simplifying his task of doing what he wants. Since there are precedents for everything, he only has to ignore those who speak against his interest and emphasize those who are in line with his desire.

The invention of a precedent elevates the trial from the low level of accidental torture to the noble posture of an orientable arbitration. The reasoned approach helps explain why individual cases and individual doctrines can draw analogies. It also explains what is true about the principled approach, as some of the considerations underlying analogous cases will be principles. But there are more legal considerations than principles, and these also play a role in analogous reasoning. It is often said that this is a marked contrast with laws that provide for a canonical formulation of the legal rule to be enacted. Given the flexibility left to subsequent courts in determining the ratio of the earlier judgment, it is misleading to believe that decisions contain rules binding on subsequent courts. While there is a contrast with the law here, it can be exaggerated. In both cases, the rules of law over which a case or provision of law has jurisdiction must be derived from case-law or law and are not identical to the wording of both. The real difference between case law and law is that, in the case of statutes, legal systems have interpretive conventions developed to support the process of deriving the law from a legal text, whereas precedents do not. But this simply shows that law derived from precedents can be vague and vague than that resulting from (many) laws; It does not state that precedents do not create legal rules. In practice, courts can usually find precedents for the direction they want to take in deciding a particular case. Therefore, precedent is often used to justify a particular outcome in a case because it is used to make decisions.

The set of judicial decisions includes the points used to formulate and decide a case before a court. 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] An analogous argument in the legal justification is the argument that a matter should be treated a certain way because a similar matter was dealt with that way.