Precedent

Definition

Precedent refers to a legal principle or rule established in previous court cases that serves as an example or authority for judges in deciding similar cases in the future. It plays a critical role in the judicial process, ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of the law by binding lower courts to follow the rulings of higher courts within the same jurisdiction.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Precedent is essential for maintaining the rule of law, as it promotes fairness and equal treatment by requiring similar cases to be decided in similar ways.
2. The Supreme Court of the UK can establish binding precedents for all lower courts, while decisions made by appellate courts can set persuasive precedents.
3. Precedents can be overruled or distinguished if a court finds that the facts of a case significantly differ from those of earlier cases.
4. Judges may rely on both binding precedents, which must be followed, and persuasive precedents, which may inform but are not obligatory for decision-making.
5. In some instances, changing social norms or values can lead to shifts in how precedent is applied, allowing for evolution in legal interpretations over time.

Review Questions

• How does the principle of stare decisis relate to the concept of precedent in judicial decision-making?
  • Stare decisis is a foundational principle that underpins the concept of precedent. It compels judges to adhere to established legal rules from previous cases when deciding new cases with similar facts. This relationship ensures that once a court has established a ruling on a legal issue, it remains consistent across future cases unless there is a strong reason to alter it. This practice promotes stability and predictability in the legal system.
• Discuss the implications of binding versus persuasive precedents for lower courts when making rulings.
  • Binding precedents require lower courts to follow the rulings set by higher courts within the same jurisdiction, ensuring uniformity in legal interpretations. In contrast, persuasive precedents come from other jurisdictions or lower courts and serve as guidance but are not obligatory. The distinction affects how judges approach their rulings; binding precedents limit their discretion while persuasive precedents allow them to consider broader interpretations and adapt the law to specific cases.
• Evaluate how changing societal values can impact the application of precedent in judicial rulings.
  • Changing societal values can significantly impact how precedents are interpreted and applied by judges. When social norms evolve, judges may find that previously established precedents do not align with contemporary understandings of justice and equity. This can lead to instances where courts choose to overrule outdated precedents or apply them in a manner that reflects current values. Such shifts underscore the dynamic nature of law and highlight how the judiciary can respond to societal changes while still respecting the importance of precedent.

Related terms

Stare Decisis: The doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case, ensuring legal stability.

Case Law: Law established based on the outcomes of previous court decisions, which can influence future rulings and interpretations.

Judicial Activism: The practice where judges interpret laws and constitutional provisions in a way that may deviate from established precedent to adapt to contemporary values or circumstances.