0
Trial courts are required to follow the law as it is. In the US, the law is "ranked" as follows:
Constitution
Statute
Case law
Regulations
Additionally, federal law "trumps" state law. So, if a court is faced with a statute and a case that are in conflict, the court must follow the statute.
This is one of the ways that congress "checks" courts. If the courts make a ruling on an issue, but congress does not like the precedent, congress can enact a statute that changes the law.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the English system of law base on?
mainly statutes and judicial precedent. Basically, a statute is a law created by the Government. Judicial Precedent is a little more complex. Basically in a court case, a judge may set down new precedent. This means that the Judge is effectively creating new law. Now, the court system is based on a hierarchy with the highest court being the Supreme Court. Each court lower down in the hierarchy has to follow precedent from the Courts above it. A judge in a higher up court can overrule a decision from a court below it. Judicial precedent is also known as common law. A good example of this is murder. Murder is not defined in any statute (people believe that it is defined under the Homicide Act 1957 but this only sets out defenses that are available to murder) and is based on precedent. The definition of Murder under English law comes from a sevententh-century judge named Lord Coke
What a precedent is and how it relates to interpreting law?
Precedent, in legal terms, is the decision of judges in similar court cases to yours. If there is a previous case that is similar with a decision, the judge must follow the precedent unless the facts are distinguishable.
What does it mean when a judge uses precedent to arrive at an opinion?
precedent
How does the doctrine of judicial precedent operate within the English legal system as the means by which a judge may restrict the doctrine's operation?
If a judge has ruled on the same or similar issue in the past, the current and future judges are supposed to abide by that decision unless there is an extreme or compelling reason not to follow the precedent.
What is the strength of case law as source of law?
Case law is subordinate to statute. In all common law countries, precedent serves as law. But, statutes can overturn precedent. If there is a statute (law) on the books, then the judge will apply that law. If there is not a law against a certain activity, the judge will then look to previous rulings from previous courts and follow their direction. Case law can, however, be overturned. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court of the United States established the precedent that states could segregate the races, so long as they provided separate but equal facilities for black and white people. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court overturned this precedent with Brown v. Board. So case law is not a very strong source of law. It is lower than statutory law, and it can be overturned.
How does a judge resolve uncertainty in any statute?
There's a whole area of law that governs statutory interpretation, speaking generally a judge will, if there isn't precedent, apply a meaning to the statute that makes the clause in question consistent with the rest of the statute which usually clears it up. Judges in alot of places also have the right to reference the speeches, declarations and the like made by the legislature to attempt to work out what they meant to say.
When judges make laws they?
Judges do not make law, they set precedent. The Legislature forms and passes statutes. Once someone is taken to court in violation of a statute, the Judge interpret the law and sets precedent for how the law should be interpreted in the future by equal courts within that district.
What does it mean when a judge follows a legal precedent?
"Precedent" means "that which comes before". In making an interpretation of the law, judges will examine the decisions of judges who decided similar cases. If the case is sufficiently similar (the legal term for this is "on point"), the judge will adopt the reasoning of the earlier judge. This is called following a precedent.
When does it mean a judge follows a legal precedent?
"Precedent" means "that which comes before". In making an interpretation of the law, judges will examine the decisions of judges who decided similar cases. If the case is sufficiently similar (the legal term for this is "on point"), the judge will adopt the reasoning of the earlier judge. This is called following a precedent.
What does the system of judicial precedent mean?
The way the question is asked: USING judicial precedent, means that the judge is following the lead of a decision in a similar case that has already been decided upon and he is ruling the same way using the other case as a guideline. If the questioner meant to ask what does SETTING judicial precedent mean. . . that means that the judge was rendering a decision in a case of a type that had never been tried, or ruled upon, in the past, and that his verdict would set the 'precedent' by which all future cases might be judged. Judges, by the way, do NOT necessarily have to follow precedent in making rulings.
How does a statute tell a judge what to decide?
a statute is just a guideline. the judge will sentence criminals based on their prior record, if they appeared remorseful....etc
How can judges control a courtroom procedure in order to guarantee a fair trial?
The judge follows the Constitutional protections given to the accused. She must also follow the rules of evidence and respect precedent.
