the practice statement 1966..... and if a judge doesnt want to follow a binding precedent he can distinguish it by finding a significant difference in the facts of an earlier case and say that the ratio of the earlier case doesnt apply to the case before him
In Canadian courts, judges are bound by the precedents of courts which are superior to the court in which they are sitting and may be influenced by the decisions of lateral or inferior courts. However, practically speaking, rarely are two cases so alike that it is not possible for a judge to 'distinguish' the case at hand from the precedent from which they would otherwise be bound. Hence, it is not uncommon for a court to refuse to apply what would seem to be a binding precedent by simply stating that the precedent does not apply due to a unique fact scenario.
That depends on which court you're referring to. In the federal court system, the US Supreme Court sets binding (or mandatory) precedent for all lower courts; the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts set binding precedent for all US District Courts within their jurisdiction, but only persuasive precedent elsewhere; the US District Courts do not set binding precedent at all, they only set persuasive precedent.
A binding precedent is precedent that a court MUST follow (it is law). All prior judicial decisions in a specific court's jurisdiction heard at that court's level or higher are considered to be binding precedent. In contrast, persuasive precedent is precedent that a court need not follow (it is NOT law, but, as the name suggests, may be persuasive because it suggests a line of reasoning). All prior judicial decisions OUTSIDE of that court's jurisdiction or from a LOWER court are considered to be persuasive only.
U.S Supreme Court
A legal precedent is called "controlling" in a court proceeding if the precedent is a decision rendered by a court to which any judgment of the court in which the proceeding is occurring can be appealed, either immediately or ultimately.
Following precedent.Added: The question calls for two separate answers.Creating law from traditions is usually referred to as "Common Law."Law developed through evolving court decisions is known as "following precedent."
Yes courts can depart from Precedents. However this depends on the level of the court and the precedent being relied upon. For instance the Supreme Court is not bound by any precedent, not even the one it set, yet the lower courts to it are bound by such precedents. Also the precedent being relied upon could have been overtaken by events e.g by change of law, time or any other factor hence making it obsolete and therefore courts departing from such precedent.
Precedent
Obiter Dicta
This was the first sitting Supreme Court of the USA. Every decision made by that court established the original precedent for all subsequent cases in the USA. Perhaps the most important was Marbury vs Madison where the precedent was established for the Supreme Court to review laws for "Constitutionality".
The court must refuse to decide the particular case.
This was the first sitting Supreme Court of the USA. Every decision made by that court established the original precedent for all subsequent cases in the USA. Perhaps the most important was Marbury vs Madison where the precedent was established for the Supreme Court to review laws for "Constitutionality".
LAw based on court decrees and precedent is