Understanding Applicable Laws: Decoding Legal Application

Case law, also known as common law, is a law based on precedents, or the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. In other words, case law is concerned with the unique disputes resolved by courts using the concrete facts of a case. Case law differs from statutory law, which is written abstractly. In the US, case law is created by the federal court system and the state court system. Each branch of government produces a different type of law.

The 'law of the case' doctrine

The law of the case doctrine is a legal term that applies primarily in common law or Anglo-American jurisdictions that recognise the related doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine refers to the principle that a higher court's decision on a legal issue is binding on both the trial court on remand and an appellate court on a subsequent appeal in the same case, provided the facts remain substantially the same. In other words, it ensures that lower courts comply with the rulings of higher courts and prevents the re-litigation of settled issues.

The law of the case doctrine can be understood as having two main applications, as outlined by Judge Joseph G. Scoville in Stryker Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company. Firstly, it refers to the requirement that a lower court follows the law as established by an appellate court in earlier proceedings of the same case. In this context, the appellate court's rulings are binding in subsequent proceedings. Secondly, the doctrine may refer to the discretion that a lower court has to adhere to its own legal rulings made at an earlier stage of the same case. However, these rulings are not binding, as the lower court can reconsider and revise them before the entry of judgment.

The law of the case doctrine is not an absolute rule and is subject to certain exceptions. For example, it does not apply to clearly erroneous earlier holdings or to later stages of litigation that present different parties, issues, or facts. Additionally, appellate courts have the discretion to depart from the doctrine in exceptional circumstances, such as when there is a compelling reason for a redetermination of a point of law on prior appeal.

The law of the case doctrine is distinct from stare decisis, which is a broader principle of precedent that applies to future cases with similar facts or legal issues. In contrast, the law of the case doctrine specifically relates to the same case at different stages of litigation.

Common law

At the core of common law is the principle of stare decisis, which means that courts and judges must follow previous rulings and decisions, known as caselaw, when dealing with similar cases. This promotes stability and consistency in the legal system. While lower courts generally must follow the decisions of higher courts, they do have some flexibility to modify or deviate from precedents if they are outdated or if the current case is substantially different.

In a common law jurisdiction, determining "what the law is" in a given situation involves several stages of research and analysis. This includes ascertaining the facts, locating relevant statutes and cases, extracting principles and statements from various courts, and then applying that law to the facts of the case at hand.

Statutory law

Statutes are often codified, meaning they are numbered, collected, and indexed in one place. They are typically separated into two main categories: public and private. Public statutes apply uniformly across the general public, such as in traffic laws. Private statutes, on the other hand, concern specific institutions, individuals, or groups of people, such as immigration matters.

Statutes can be further categorized by what they affect, their duration, or the type of wording they use. Some examples of these categories include declaratory statutes, remedial statutes, temporary statutes, perpetual statutes, affirmative statutes, negative statutes, personal statutes, and real statutes.

While statutory law differs from common and administrative law, both of these can become statutory law if they are officially written down and passed by a legislative body. For example, a declaratory judgment can make common law official for a particular circumstance, becoming a statutory law.

Stare decisis

In the US legal system, stare decisis represents the "doctrine of precedent", which dictates that a court must follow earlier decisions when the same points arise again in litigation. Typically, a court will deviate from precedent only if there is a compelling reason.

There are two types of stare decisis: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis.

Vertical stare decisis, on the other hand, is deeply entrenched in the American legal system and is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme". This type of stare decisis occurs when a court applies precedent from a higher court. For example, if the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York adheres to a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, that would be vertical stare decisis.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the doctrine of stare decisis is not an "inexorable command". The US Supreme Court has explained that when prior decisions are "unworkable or are badly reasoned", the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, especially in constitutional cases.

The doctrine of stare decisis lessens the need for subsequent litigation and saves the time and energy of the judiciary by preventing the same legal question or issue from being continually re-litigated. It also fosters predictable, unbiased, and consistent development in the law, and increases reliance on judicial decisions.

Binding precedent

A precedent is considered binding if it was made by a superior court that is higher in the hierarchy of courts. For example, decisions of the High Court of Australia are binding on all courts in the country, but a decision of the Supreme Court is not binding on the High Court. Lower courts are thus bound, or required, to follow the legal precedent set by the higher court.

In the US, the Supreme Court is the highest court, and its decisions are binding on all other courts in the country. On the other hand, the decisions of the highest court in New York are only binding on other courts in the state, but not in other states.

In the English legal system, the Supreme Court has the ability to override its own precedent. The British House of Lords, as the previous court of last appeal, was strictly bound to follow its own decisions until the London Street Tramways v London County Council case in 1898. After this, the House of Lords could adapt English law to meet changing social conditions.

There are two crucial factors in determining whether a precedent is binding: the position of the court in the hierarchy and whether the facts of the current case fall within the scope of the principle of law in previous decisions.

Frequently asked questions