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.
When a ruling is made by a judge in a case, it sets a precedent for the same and similar types of cases in the future. Judges in future cases are expected to go by that precedent unless there is extreme or compelling reason not to. Thus, the operation of judicial precedent can be restricted by a judge who feels there is reason the precedent does not pertain to a specific case.
the doctrine of judicial restrain holds that judges should generally defer to precedent and to decisions made by legislature
Sort you head out jamica jamica
Read Malaysian Legal System book, you lazy ass.
The doctrine of judicial precedent* refers to the process by which judges follow previously decided cases. Courts at the top of the hierarchy are of more significance so their decisions carry greater legal weight than lower or inferior court decisions. In the UK, the House of Lords binds lower courts, but not itself. Even though its ability to depart from previous decisions is wide it uses this power with great discretion, following guidelines laid out in the Practice Statement Judicial Precedent of 1966. *Another name of the doctrine is "stare decisis". ("Stare" is pronounced "starry" or "staray"; decisis rhymes with crisis with the "c" pronounced as an "s".) It is Latin for "the decision stands".
Judicial precedent refers to a legal case that establishes a principle or rule that can be applied by other court or other judicial body
Many countries are happy with judicial precedent. If it were not in place then judgements in previous cases would not be relevant in current cases. This could lead to situations where people were found not guilty in the past for exactly the same accusation for which they could be found guilty now. That can not be fair. If the public think that a particular judgement leading to a judicial precedent is not correct, they can pass a law in the legislature to correct the mistake.
This legal doctrine is known as stare decisis, a latin term which means to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed. A prior judicial decision is commonly referred to as a precedent.
Doctrinalism relies on the principle of stare decisis.Judicial restraint relies on a narrow interpretation of the text of the Constitution and the Framers' inferred intent in decision-making. If the precedent being relied upon under stare decisis was made using judicial restraint, then adhering to the precedent also involves judicial restraint; if the controlling precedent being used represents an instance of judicial activism, then upholding the precedent also requires a (lesser) degree of judicial activism.The concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism relate to decisions based on a particular theoretical view of the Constitution and its purpose. Stare decisis relates to consistency in upholding case law, regardless of whether the precedent was originally determined via activism or restraint.
James Louis Montrose has written: 'Judicial law making and law applying' 'Precedent in English law' -- subject- s -: Addresses, essays, lectures, Law 'Judicial implementation of legislative policy' 'The operation of description in a contract of sale of goods'
precedent
Precedent
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.