Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
Obiter dictum (usually used in the plural, obiter dicta) is a Latin phrase meaning "other things said", [1] that is, a remark in a legal opinion that is "said in passing" by any judge or arbitrator. It is a concept derived from English common law , whereby a judgment comprises only two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta .
The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent as a source of law (one of the defining features of common law legal systems). [42] [15] While Common law systems place great weight on precedent, [90] civil law judges tend to give less weight to judicial precedent. [91]
In its first decision, the Federal Circuit incorporated as binding precedent the decisions of its predecessor courts, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. [8] Because the Court is one of national jurisdiction, panels from the court may sit anywhere in the country.
These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.
If faced with a binding judicial precedent, a court has a number of ways to respond to it, and may use the following legal devices and mechanisms: [10] Applying - simply following the precedent, and using its ratio in the current case. Approval - showing approval of the earlier case, without necessarily applying it. [11]
The rule of binding precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes ...
A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law. However, they are cited from time to time as a persuasive authority when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case will write a majority ...