Keith Mack
When deciding a case, a court will refer to case law, which is the collection of reported cases that form the body of law within a given jurisdiction. Case law is based on precedents, or the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Judges will refer to various types of persuasive authority to decide a case, such as widely-cited non-binding sources including legal encyclopaedias, the published work of the Law Commission, or statutory powers such as the Highway Code. Case law is distinguished from statutory law, which is enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law, which is established by executive agencies based on statutes. In common law systems, courts follow the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that courts respect and adhere to the precedent of previous decisions. However, a court does not have to stand by a decision that is not binding precedent. For example, in England, the High Court and the Court of Appeals are bound by their own previous decisions, but the Supreme Court can deviate from its earlier decisions.
Explore related products
$28.95
What You'll Learn
Stare decisis
Vertical stare decisis, a deeply entrenched concept in the American legal system, holds that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts. This is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme". For example, a decision by the United States Supreme Court is binding precedent in all courts. On the other hand, a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit would not be binding on the United States Supreme Court or courts from another circuit.
Horizontal stare decisis holds that prior decisions made by courts at a particular appellate level (such as a federal court of appeals) should provide some precedent for cases heard by courts of the same appellate level. For example, in Ling v. Jan's Liquors, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's ruling in accordance with the stare decisis principle, declining to overturn the decision.
Judges must discern the "ratio decidendi", or the grounds for the decisions taken in previous cases, to apply the precedents stated in a report. In cases where the reasoning is similar enough to lead to the same or a similar conclusion, it is the reasons—and nothing else—that "link" subsequent cases. Precedent can also be persuasive, where a court may, but is not required to, rely on it in deciding a case.
Michigan Case Law: Understanding Binding Precedents
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vertical stare decisis
Stare decisis is a foundational concept in the American legal system, derived from the Latin term meaning "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided". It holds that courts and judges should honour "precedent"—that is, the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. This respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable.
The Appellate Jurisdiction Theory of vertical stare decisis suggests that when adjudicating a case, a court is only required to apply the precedent of tribunals with appellate jurisdiction over that particular matter. On the other hand, the Structural Theory argues that a lower court must presumptively follow the precedent of superior courts within the judicial hierarchy.
The Hybrid Theory, as the name suggests, combines elements of the previous two theories. It specifies that a court must presumptively follow the precedent of tribunals with appellate jurisdiction over its rulings in a particular case, as well as the precedent of superior courts within the judicial hierarchy.
While stare decisis is a simple concept, there are nuances and limits in its application. For instance, courts may hear cases where following precedent may lead to unjust outcomes. In such cases, judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or even overturn prior rulings.
Case Managers: Legal Support Heroes
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Persuasive precedent
In the US legal system, stare decisis is a foundational concept, derived from the Latin "to stand by things decided". This means that courts and judges should honour precedent, or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. This gives the law consistency and makes its interpretation more predictable.
Courts often turn to persuasive precedent when interpreting unclear laws or addressing "cases of first impression", where no prior binding authority exists and the court must determine the law for the first time. For example, in the US, decisions from superior overseas courts, such as those in the UK, are considered persuasive precedent.
The court may consider the reasoning and analysis used in the earlier decision and use it as a guide in making its own decision. However, the court is not required to follow the earlier decision if it does not find it persuasive or applicable to the current case.
In summary, persuasive precedent is an important concept in the US legal system, allowing courts to consider previous decisions and rulings when interpreting the law and making their own rulings. While not binding, persuasive precedent helps promote consistency and predictability in the law.
The Mincey and Tyler Case Law: Understanding Police Conduct
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Ratio decidendi
The ratio decidendi is derived from the legal reasoning within a judgement on which the outcome of the case depends. It is the process of determining what the court actually decided, based on the legal points about which the parties in the case fought. It is not always easy to locate the ratio decidendi, especially in older cases where the ratio and obiter are not explicitly separated. In such cases, the courts may not be able to locate it.
An example of a case with multiple ratios decidendi is Kay v Lambeth LBC, where a panel of seven judges produced a number of competing ratios, some made explicit and others implicit in the decision.
Hypothetical Law Scenarios: What's in a Name?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Case reporters
Appellate courts hear appeals from parties seeking to change the outcome of a case heard at the trial court level. They rule on questions of law and consider legal issues, rather than questions of fact. Therefore, their decisions are more likely to be used as precedent and published in case reporters. In contrast, trial courts deal with the presentation of evidence and witnesses.
For instance, in the citation "United States v. MacDonald, 531 F.2d 196 (4th Cir. 1976)", the deciding court is the 4th Circuit, or the United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit. Each circuit court has its own abbreviation, which researchers can use to identify the relevant court, particularly when they are interested in cases from a specific jurisdiction.
In addition to print case reporters, law libraries also provide access to online legal databases that include cases and links to other relevant legal resources. Some libraries offer remote access to these databases, making them easily accessible to researchers.
Administrative Law: A Case Study Exploration
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Case law is a law based on precedents, or the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations.
A precedent is a judicial decision from a previous case that can be used as a reference point for deciding a similar case in the future.
Case law plays an important role in court decisions as it helps judges interpret statutes and apply precedents. Judges refer to the detailed facts of previous cases to determine how and why those cases were decided.
Yes, a court can overrule or change a precedent. However, this is a complex process and the court must employ a framework to decide when to modify a precedent. For example, a higher court can overrule the precedent set by a lower court.
