answersLogoWhite

0


Want this question answered?

Be notified when an answer is posted

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What does a Precedent look like?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What two types of precedent are there in doctrine of precedent?

binding(mandatory) precedent persuasive precedent


When English judges were asked to try a case they would look for what?

Precedent


Why would a judge want to look for a precedent when deciding case?

so he/she has someone else to look at the evidence with and make a better decision


Why would a judge want to look for precedent when deciding a case?

so he/she has someone else to look at the evidence with and make a better decision


An appeal to precedent is a type of?

an appeal to precedent is a type of an appeal to precedent is a type of


When a case sets up new ways to look at a law what is it known as?

A "landmark" or a "precedent-setting" case.


To what extent are precedent are binding or not binding?

it depends on how old the precedent is, how closely related is it to the case you are looking at and the difference between your precedent and crown/defense lawyer's precedent


Should you say set a precedence or precedent?

precedent


What term describes a ruling in an earlier legal case that is similar to a current case?

Precedent


How much does the US precedent get paid?

About like over quite a few million a year...


What does it mean when a judge uses precedent to arrive at an opinion?

precedent


Is an appeal to precedent a type of inductive generalization?

No. An appeal to precedent is a type of analogy. This is the practice of using a case that has already been decided in a court of law (the precedent) as an analog with which to compare the case in question. If the case in question is sufficiently similar to the precedent, and the precedent stands on the authority of the court's ruling, then it may be argued by analogy that the case in question should receive the same ruling. It would be inconsistent, hence illogical, to treat like cases (the analogs) differently. (McGraw Hill Moral reasoning)