Want this question answered?
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.
Historical precedent
You cannot avoid judicial precedent that is "binding." This includes precedent that is made by a higher court in your jurisdiction (legal region) or the Supreme Court of the United States. If the precedent is directly adverse (contrary) to your position, you have a couple of options. First, you could find a way to "distinguish" the binding precedent. This means finding a relevant detail about your position that makes it somehow different from the adverse cases in your jurisdiction. Here, you have to look at those cases and examine the fact-patterns, comparing those to the fact-pattern in your case/position. You might also have to come up with some compelling arguments for why the "holding" (the legally binding decision(s)) of the previous cases (precedent) should be narrowed or construed a certain way so that they either support or are no longer adverse to your position. Another way to avoid judicial precedent is to make a compelling legal/policy argument for why it should be overturned. For example, the Court that decided Brown v. Board of education overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson for compelling reasons. However, depending on which court you are in, and because of the doctrine of "stare decisis" (to 'stand by the decision'), this can be very difficult. That's why lawyers get paid the big bucks. You cannot avoid judicial precedent that is "binding." This includes precedent that is made by a higher court in your jurisdiction (legal region) or the Supreme Court of the United States. If the precedent is directly adverse (contrary) to your position, you have a couple of options. First, you could find a way to "distinguish" the binding precedent. This means finding a relevant detail about your position that makes it somehow different from the adverse cases in your jurisdiction. Here, you have to look at those cases and examine the fact-patterns, comparing those to the fact-pattern in your case/position. You might also have to come up with some compelling arguments for why the "holding" (the legally binding decision(s)) of the previous cases (precedent) should be narrowed or construed a certain way so that they either support or are no longer adverse to your position. Another way to avoid judicial precedent is to make a compelling legal/policy argument for why it should be overturned. For example, the Court that decided Brown v. Board of education overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson for compelling reasons. However, depending on which court you are in, and because of the doctrine of "stare decisis" (to 'stand by the decision'), this can be very difficult. That's why lawyers get paid the big bucks.
The main power of the Judicial Branch is judicial review, the ability of the courts to review laws and executive orders relevant to a case before the court to determine whether they are constitutional.
The main power of the Judicial Branch is judicial review, the ability of the courts to review laws and executive orders relevant to a case before the court to determine whether they are constitutional.
The Servihoo website currently redirects to the Mauritius local version of the Orange website. Which means that the information which can be found on the Servihoo website is mobile phone, and internet connection based information relevant to Mauritius.
yes you can , however you need to have it with you at all times and still have all the relevant insurance etc
The fourth amendment to the US Constitution deals with the rights of citizens to have due process and requires warrants for searches. Judicial review is not really relevant to this amendment.
The main power of the Judicial Branch is judicial review, the ability of the courts to review laws and executive orders relevant to a case before the court to determine whether they are constitutional.
Judicial ReviewThe courts may only exercise judicial review if the agency's action or decision is relevant to a case being tried or reviewed on appeal.
Judicial :)
According to Air Force Doctrine, an action is performance of an activity to create desired effects. In general, there are two broad categories of actions that are relevant at the tactical and operational levels: Kinetic and non-kinetic.