6 Precedent Can Influence Judicial Decisions In A Number Of Ways

In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time. Having

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

In legal models, the judge makes a decision based on facts and laws without considering how the decision may impact public policies. They may also utilize previous cases that have similarities to the current case in order to make a decision. This is useful because they may interpret the Constitution from different points of views of other justices or judges which had to make a decision on a past similar case (Video Engager). The only downside to this model is the fact that judges make decisions without

b. From this, the principle may influential to individual justices that can compare the current case to that of a previous ruling, and in result the justice may choose the same ruling that was given to the similar case.

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

Court decision rules and help make the outcome of case law. The important of case law is it can be interprets with statues, regulation, constitutional provisions and other case law. (Miller, 2017). Judges decisions which are made in previous cases can make a case law. Case laws decisions can come from civil lawsuit, state court, local court and federal court. For example, if I had file a civil lawsuit against someone about an incident and win the case. A few years later, somebody else has a similar incident, but loses their case. The court the court must use the previous court’s decision in applying the law.

The outcome of cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court judicial branch have each had a major impact on how the laws and amendments of the United States Constitution are interpreted. Two cases in particular that expanded constitutional liberties is the case of Engel vs. Vitale (1962) and the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines School District (1969). Not only did both of these cases expand constitutional liberties in general, they more specifically, expanded rights within the school system.

There is absolutely no resistance to the idea that the Supreme Court’s decisions shape our country’s future. Decisions like Brown v Board of Education, or Obergefell v Hodges have dramatically changed some laws and restrictions seem as derogatory and contrary to our “equalitarian” society. The question that many people pose however, is why some Supreme Court decisions implemented almost immediately, and others take a while to even gain some sense of traction. Expert opinions differ, but they all almost revolve around the idea that political inclination often determine implementation and respect of laws. Others say resistance to Supreme Court decisions stem from the parties involved and their interests. Needless to say, almost every theory and opinion in this case bear some truth.

The doctrine of Judicial precedent applies the principles of stare decisis which ‘lets the decision stand’. ‘Whenever a new problem arises in law the final decision forms a rule to be followed in all similar cases, making the law more predictable’ making it easier for people to live within the law.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

The rules of precedent themselves are judge made, except where a statute has intervened. Occasionally, judges have to decide on a case where there is

The judges in the lower courts are bound to follow previous decision of the higher courts. It is an essential component of the common law as it is important of adequate law reporting. It is a decision of the court used as a source for future decision-making.

Time-saving. Where principles have been established, cases with familiar facts are unlikely to go through a lengthy process of litigation. The main disadvantages of the doctrine of judicial precedent are; -

The advantages are certainty, practicality and flexibility. Certainty is one of the greatest advantages of the doctrine. The people can aim their actions with faith with the results in greater certainty. For the practicality, the law evolved was ground on reality instead of theoretical conditions. With there is still an adaptability that the judges can prevent from following previous cases if it had been settled incaution or by distinguishing precedents while the higher courts restrict the lower courts with its decision. The first disadvantages of doctrine of binding judicial precedent is rigidity. A lower courts must follow a prior precedent even it is wrong and also the cases may not go on for appeal to a higher court. The chances of amending the previous result may be lost and the judges must give a good reason for denying the previous precedents. The other disadvantages is hard to determine the ratio decidendi as there may be more than one ratio decidendi. So, this makes the judges very difficult to discover the right ratio decidendi. In the cases Rickards v Lothian (1913), the judges give more than one ratio decidendi. There is hundreds of judgement are made every year. The massive and rising of number in cases become a main problem with the doctrine and the complexity of the law. This let the important authority unintentionally be