what is the value of judicial precedence//?

Answer 1

It is extremely important in guiding decisions of judges from that jurisdiction.

Answer 2

The above answers are correct, in a common law jurisdiction.

In common law countries (England, Australia, US), holdings of higher courts are used as binding authority, determining how the lower courts shall rule on an issue. This provieds clarity and consistency in a ruling. In fact, in civil tort or contract matters, or when dealing with affirmative defenses, almost all of the legal doctrines in play arise from common law (judge-made law). The higher courts rule, and that sets the lines for later decisions.

Even on later holdings by the same court (which are not binding), there is strong incentive to keep the ruling the same. This is called "stare decisis" ("let the decision stand"). In other words, even if a court can change its prior ruling on an issue, it won't unless there is a good reason to do so.

Note that this doesn't apply in a civil law system (France, Lousiana) because there precedent is not binding.

Eliminating common law (judge-made precedent), and going to a civil law system, removes any concept of stability from legal interpretation, and allows each judge to make any ruling they want, regardless of prior rulings. The only way to prevent chaos is to have many more statutory laws, and have those statutory laws be more detailed and complex, which is what happens in civil law jurisdictions.

Answer 3

A precedent that must be applied or followed is known as mandatory precedent or binding authority. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must have regard to mandatory precedent when deciding a case. Mandatory precedent is usually created by superior courts and is binding on lower courts. By definition the decisions of lower courts are not binding on superior courts, although superior courts may often adopt the legal reasoning of lower courts.

In extraordinary circumstances a superior court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent in any event. In a case of first impression there is no mandatory precedent for the court to consider.

A precedent that is not mandatory but that is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent or advisory precedent. In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through the adoption of the persuasive precedent by a superior court.

Answer 4

It lets you know how a similar case was decided. That would be how future similar cases would be decided.

Answer 5

So that you can have uniformity to the law...