what is precedent and how it is a part of our legal system???

Answer 1

Precedent plays an important role in our legal system.

Precedent is when a case has been analyzed and ruled on... then when a similar situation appears, the courts know how to rule on it... based on previous analysis.

This saves an enormous amount of time and effort.

Answer 2

precedent solidifies our law... court decisions make the law. if we didn't have precedent, or the theory of stare decisis (let the decision stand), then we'd be reinventing the wheel each lawsuit. and we'd end up with a lot of inconsistent holdings because what's fair for one lawsuit might not make the most fairness for another party. the result would be a lot of scattered bits of law and no one would know how to act because the behavior might be acceptable in one set of circumstances, but unacceptable in another. Stare decisis helps our community because people know how to behave. it also helps the courts because they don't have to make the law everytime: they just have to apply it to a new set of facts.

There's actually a lot of modes of thought regarding precedent. Some schools of thought believe that judges rely on precedent a lot and some believe that judges do what they want... and if they want to go against precedent they will. Both of those modes are probably very right and very wrong... Judges do rely on precedent to a great extent... they can't just abandon the law... trial court decisions would be overturned if they did abandon the law... and judges who don't follow the law would not be promoted to upper level positions. But at the same time, we can't just follow the law without thinking about the justice that it would do in each situation. If it's going to make immense unfairness, judges can change the law. This country does not have the same caselaw as it did 200 years ago. Even the law books in the library have paper pamphlets in the back that are updated each year with the newest rulings in the area. Most of the time the changes are minimal and simply regard a new development that had not been considered before. But sometimes we have huge overturnings. Very few cases are completely good law on every point. Some older cases have been completely overturned and many many cases have some piece of the reasoning questioned by another decision... Only a few issues are undisputed law across all of the jurisdictions in the US. Our system allows jurisdictions to have their own law, so it is not a problem, but it's important to realize that the law in one place may not be the law in every other jurisdiction.

Even things decided by the US Supreme Court itself is never set in stone... look at Plessy v Furgeson and Brown v Board... in just 60 years there was a complete reversal on what the Supreme Court said the law should be.

So precedent is a really important aspect of our legal system. It allows efficiency by telling citizens and the court what the law is. But it remains flexible to deal with the changing times.

I wrote a whole essay on this last year... it's kinda boring and has a lot of citations from other essays, but if you're interested, you could read it. let me know

Answer 3

When a court makes a decision, then the court itself and all lower courts are bound by that decision. For example, suppose there is a stutute that says all children shall do whatever. A court--an appeals court--is confronted with the question what is the meaning of children within this statute? Is it kids 10 years or younger? 15 years? etc. The appeals court will try and give maning to the term based on what the legislature was trying to accomplish. From that point on, whatever meaning it gives to this term, it and all lower courts are bound by it. This notion emerged from criminal law really. Back then laws were not written into codes. Instead, courts simply made a case by case decision. So the courts figured it's only fair that we stick to our past decisions in determining what is a crime and what is not so as to put the public on notice about what is a crime and what is not. Imagine if you're arrested and after you are arrested it is determined that what you did is a crime. Now wouldn't that be unfair if there was nothing to put you on notice that what you did is criminal?

Answer 4

Both the Australian and US legal systems are derived from the English Common Law. Under this model, the legislature writes prospective general laws (statutes), based around expectations and future events, and the courts interpret those laws to specific situations and applications by resolving specific controversies when they arise.

Those rulings that arise out of specific cases and controversies are called common law. Every time a court case is cited for a particular rule, that's an application of the Common Law. All of torts for example, as well as most of American criminal procedure, primarily are based on common law, rather than legislative statute.

Why do those rulings have any effect on later cases? Because of the doctrines of precedent and "stare decisis" (literally, "let the decision stand"). The rulings of courts have value in later cases to ensure that the same set of facts achieves the same outcome. That's why cases have precedent value. And that's really the only way our legal system can work. If we didn't follow precedent, every judge was completely free to interpret the laws, without any regard for what previous court decisions had said on the subject.

To avoid this, the English Common Law (and its American and Australian counterparts) allowed Judges to have their interpretations be independently binding, as case precedent. This way, the branch of government which is making the interpretations, the judiciary, is responsible for publishing and organizing its own common law declarations, rather than forcing the legislature to constantly be doing that.Remove the ability of the courts to make law and you drastically weaken the stability of the entire legal system.

Answer 5

This answer is not necessarily a challenge to the first answer. Statute law is determined by a 'legislature' however defined. Precedent is used in countless cases before the 'court' to try to argue that decisions made in past court cases may apply to a given case. It's for the court of the moment to decide if, in fact, the precedent(s) apply or not. They definitely are not 'law'. The first responder may have meant such but said it wrong.

Answer 6

Precedent is a case which is followed by the judges in ruling on cases with the same issues, identity of parties and similar claims. It becomes part of the legal system because the rulings will be the same unless overturned.

Answer 7

I think most of the people who answered the questions gave a rather good explanation but they forgot to mentioned on one point...
What if there are two conflicting decisions?
When is a judge not bound with the doctrine?
and,
A precedent forms part of your legal system by a way of judge made laws or known as judge made decisions.

Answer 8

humorous too, you are able to pass to a e book keep and purchase a bible in china in case you like, i lived there for a 12 months. you are able to no longer smuggle in 3 hundred bottles of pepsi the two, you will possibly be able to desire to pay a tax on such products, i think over 2 bottles for private use and attempting to convey extra beneficial than that into any united states of america is a custom violation. in case you lie on your customs style and attempt to cover something be it tylenol, bibles or heroin, you're accountable of smuggling and can be arrested. they actually gave those men a harm and purely confiscated thier contraband. in line with danger the may be religious zealots ought to have carried out a sprint diagnosis and seen that thier counsel approximately constrained faith grew to become into 40 years previous. Mao died interior the 70's. Your argument approximately unlawful immigrants is slightly a stretch although. that's 2 distinctive crimes. you are able to cry foul and whinge which you have religious stunning yet no respectable is listening to you. they are actually not listening to the guy smuggling bibles into china nor are they listening to the guy smuggling fruit pickers into arizona. they're all purely crying to those that do no longer care. the only precedent that's being set is that in case you get caught smuggling you're screwed.

Answer 9

A decision in a court case that furnishes an example or authority for deciding subsequent cases in which identical or similar facts are presented.