Why Is Precedent Important in Law

In general, a common law court system consists of courts of first instance, intermediate courts of appeal and a high court. The lower courts conduct almost all legal proceedings. Lower courts are required to respect the precedents set by the Court of Appeal for their jurisdiction and any precedents set by the Supreme Court. For example, Kansas State courts of appeals will follow their precedent, the Precedent of the Kansas Supreme Court and the Precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kansas is not required to follow the precedents of other states` courts of appeals, California says. However, when Kansas is faced with a single case, it may refer to the California precedent or another state that has an established decision as a guide to establish its precedent. If the facts or problems of a case differ from those of a previous case, the previous case cannot set a precedent. In Cooper Industries, Inc.c.

Aviall Services, Inc., the Supreme Court reiterated that “[t]he reasons that are merely hidden on the minutes, brought to the attention of the court or decided, should not be considered as such. Previous[].¬†Accordingly, an earlier decision serves only as a precedent for questions which the General Court expressly took into account in its decision, having regard to the particular facts. Conclusion The precedent provides legal authority for an action precisely because it took place before these words were quoted by Ari Melber. The precedents are the law made by the judge or it is also called the law of justice. With this letter, you clearly understand the importance of precedents and the role of the judiciary in the development of legislation. The ratio decidendi is the binding part of a precedent. Obiter dicta are the simple things that are the discussions, that have been done and that have no binding value. By writing these lines, you clearly understand that the importance of precedents in the current scenario is from a legal point of view. Endnote: A binding precedent is one that all lower courts must follow under common law legal systems. A binding precedent depends on the legal principle of stare decisis.

A stare decisis means standing next to decisive things. There are cases where these are questions that allow a fundamental answer. The reason for the decision, called Ratio Decidendi, is the only thing that is binding for similar cases in the future. The judge`s opinions, which are not relevant to the decision of cases of a similar nature, are called Obiter Dictum. In short, a precedent is therefore a law promulgated by a judge, of which only the Ratio Decidendi is binding and the Obiter Dictum is not binding. The second principle, which refers to convincing precedents, reflects the general guidelines on precedents on which a court can rely in all its decisions. [5] Stare decisis is a basic principle of the American legal system, but it is not an “implacable order.” [67] The doctrine “is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula for respecting the final decision.” [68] In deciding whether to remove the power to bind a precedent, courts assess a number of non-determining factors, including the feasibility of precedent, the trust interests at stake, whether the precedent was set by subsequent legal developments, and whether setting the precedent would jeopardize the legitimacy of the judiciary. This “set of prudential and pragmatic considerations” frames the courts` attempts to reconcile the act of “overturning a previous decision with the ideal of the rule of law.” [69] In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term “super precedent” in an article they wrote about testing precedent theories by counting citations. [18] Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influence effect of a cited decision.

The term “super precedent” was then associated with another topic: the difficulty of reversing a decision. [19] In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court`s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for arguing that if a party can take control of the Court on a matter of great national importance (as in Roe v. Wade), that party can protect its position from reversal “by some kind of super-stare decisis.” [20] The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually safe from a tipping point, whether they were made correctly or not, is the idea to which the term “super-stare decisis” usually refers today. Factors particularly relevant to this assessment include (a) processability, (b) trust, (c) task and (d) legitimacy. This list is not exhaustive; Other guiding principles include the fact that the Supreme Court has proposed that fewer precedents be linked to cases “decided at the narrowest margins, on temperament disagreements that call into question the fundamental basis of decisions” [18], as well as the fact that the Court “presents its legislative decisions as having the right to receive the strongest form of reverence.” [19] (The latter principle stems from the Court`s conclusion that Congress can change legislative decisions by passing legislation, while Congress can only change constitutional decisions through the more complicated process of amending the Constitution.) [20] However, a review of the four factors mentioned above can help to understand some of the most important cases where the Supreme Court has decided to break with precedents […].