First off, no, Appellate courts don't have to follow the decisions of equal courts. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of instances when it is important for these courts to make their own decisions because the situations around a certain law may be very different from one circuit to another. As for the first question, I don't think upper courts ever refer to lower courts for decisions.
Binding precedent[ change change source ] Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as binding precedent alternately mandatory precedent, mandatory or binding authority, etc.
Under the doctrine of stare decisisa lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In the United States state and federal courts, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional appeals court, and all regional courts fall under a supreme court.
By definition Judicial precedent conclusion of lower courts are not binding on each other or any courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on each other or on local courts that fall under a different appeals court.
Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings.
One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows: Given a determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is Judicial precedent conclusion to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point.
In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: A judge can't be jailed or fined for disagreeing with it. His oath is not to precedent, but at least for federal judges, is to "the constitution and the laws of the United States".
The Canons of Judicial Ethics do not mention obedience to precedent, but to "the federal Constitution and that of the state whose laws they administer. In most cases, precedent is the most reasonable interpretation of the Constitution and our laws, in which cases the oath to the constitution is most faithfully observed by following precedent.
But when a judge finds the interpretation of the Constitution in a majority opinion unpersuasive, compared to the interpretation in the dissent, then following precedent may violate the judge's oath. In a ruling where Judge Roy Moore saw such a distinction, he acknowledged its authority as precedent, but said "[The] interpretation of the Constitution [by the Supreme Court majority] is their interpretation.
But nothing can conflict with a sworn officer's oath to the Constitution.
Citizens trying to obey the law need a sense of what the law is. Persuasive precedent[ change change source ] Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent or persuasive authority or advisory precedent.
In a case of first impressioncourts 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 higher court.
Custom[ change change source ] Long-held customwhich has traditionally been recognized by courts and judges, is the first kind of precedent.
Custom can be so deeply entrenched in the society at large that it gains the force of law. There need never have been a specific case decided on the same or similar issues in order for a court to take notice of customary or traditional precedent in its deliberations.
Case law[ change change source ] The other type of precedent is case law. In common law systems this type of precedent is granted more or less weight in the deliberations of a court according to a number of factors. Most important is whether the precedent is "on point," that is, does it deal with a circumstance identical or very similar to the circumstance in the instant case?Conclusion.
Judicial precedent presents a way for businesses to be surer of court decisions and understand the different legal nuances. It helps the courts to dispose of cases easily and not worry about spending money on court expenditure unnecessarily. Judicial Precedent Judicial precedent means the decisions of the higher courts automatically binds the lower courts according to the hierarchy of the courts.
This refers to the doctrine of stare decisis. Judicial precedent is source of law Judicial precedent is the source of law where past decisions create law for judges to refer back to for guidance in future cases. Precedent is based upon the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, more commonly referred to as ‘stare decisis', meaning to .
Therefore. While judicial precedent is flexible as there is a room for the law to change by departing from the previous decision of the courts using the available method can replace the outdated law by a new and suitable one.
people will know what the law is. Shortly. Understanding The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent. The doctrine of judicial precedent comes from the principle of stare decisis which means ‘stand by decisions already made’ and requires that like cases are treated alike. And in doing so provides consistency and continuity in the application of the law.
The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system. The doctrine refers to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court will be binding on a court lower that it in that hierarchy.
In general terms this.