0
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.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Wiki User
∙ 11y agojudicial precedent is a system whereby decisions made on previous cases are meant to be followed in similar cases. the precedent could be binding and persuasive if it coming from an higher court to a lower court, but it is persuasive if it from courts of coordinate jurisdiction. if it a precedent which no precdent have earlier been formed then it is called original then the new judgement will be the precedent for other judges to follow. if the precedent is binding the judges will say the reasoning for deciding this case is ''ratio decidendi''
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Whwt is meant by judicial precedent?
Judicial precedent refers to a legal case that establishes a principle or rule that can be applied by other court or other judicial body
What is the application of the doctrine of binding judicial precedent in Malaysia?
Read Malaysian Legal System book, you lazy ass.
Does judicial restraint rely on the principle of stare decisis?
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.
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.
Judicial restraint means that a judge will consider what when making decisions about a case?
precedent
Merits and demerits of judicial precedent as a source of law in Nigeria?
Merits: Judicial precedent provides consistency and predictability in legal decisions, helps in the development of the law, and ensures equality before the law by treating similar cases alike. Demerits: Overreliance on precedent can lead to inflexibility in the legal system, may perpetuate outdated laws or decisions, and limited to cases that have been previously decided, which can sometimes restrict the evolution of the law to meet current societal needs.
A judicial decision that establishes a rule for settling subsequent cases of a similar nature is a?
Precedent
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
Which US Supreme Court justice set the precedent of judicial review?
Fourth Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court), John Marshall, is often credited with setting the precedent of judicial review due to his written opinion for the case Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).In fact, judicial review is an old English common law practice that had already been adopted by the American federal court system. John Marshall simply formally affirmed it as a power of the Judicial Branch.
A outline of the doctrine of judicial precedent as applies to courts in Jamaica?
Sort you head out jamica jamica
How did the precedent of judicial review affect checks and balances?
The precedent of judicial review, as established in the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, affected checks and balances by giving the judicial branch the power to interpret the laws passed by the executive and legislative branches. It also gave the court the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.
What is the main difference between the french judicial system and the American judicial system?
One main difference is that the French judicial system is based on civil law, with judges playing a more active role in investigating cases. In contrast, the American judicial system is based on common law, with a strong emphasis on adversarial proceedings and the jury system. Additionally, the French system has separate administrative courts to handle cases involving the government, while the American system integrates administrative law within the judiciary.
