0
"Binding precedent" is a doctrine in the law that requires a lower court to apply the same law when presented with the same or substantially similar set of facts as in prior cases where that law was applied. The concept is to provide consistently in handling cases where the facts are the same or very similar. Trial courts are without discretion and must apply existing precedent, although judges can interpret what the right precedent is in a given case. That's why appellate courts (the first intermediate step in most court systems at least in the US) typically decide if the judge's interpretation was correct or not ("error"). Typically only the highest court in the jurisdiction has the ability to decide whether the law itself should continue to apply, or whether another law should apply. Then under our system of "federalism" the legislature, if it really doesn't like the court's decision, or feels it needs to be made more permanent, or expanded, can enact laws (statutes) that can support, or undercut, court decisions, and provide a basis for how the courts in the future are supposed to judge a given set of facts.
What else can I help you with?
What is the doctrine of precedent that states the decisions of other courts which are not binding on a judge?
There is no doctrine of non-binding precedents. Non-binding opinions that may be used as guidelines for deciding future cases are called persuasive precedents. Binding precedents are upheld under the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand).
Do lower courts consider Supreme Court precedents when making decisions?
Yes, if appropriate precedents exist for the case before the court. The US Supreme Court sets binding precedents, meaning lower courts are required to adhere to them (but don't always do so) under the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand).
What is the doctrine that previous court decisions should apply as precedents in similar cases known as?
The doctrine that previous court decisions should apply as precedents in similar cases is known as stare decisis.
What court sets the binding precedents for federal courts?
Supreme Court
Decisions made by judges in the various courts and used as a guide for future decisions are called what?
They are called precedents. If the decision was made by a court with jurisdiction over a lower court, they are called binding precedents because the lower court is required to apply the same reasoning in similar cases under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Are all federal appellate court decisions binding on every federal trial court?
No, that's backwards. Binding precedents are set from the top-down.US Supreme Court decisions are binding on all relevant federal (and state) courts.US Court of Appeals Circuit Court decisions are binding only on US District Courts within that Circuit.US District Court decisions are not binding on any other Courts.Non-binding precedents, including dissenting opinions, may be cited as persuasive precedents at any level, however.
What are the Disadvantages of binding precedents?
one of the disadavntge is complexity which i dont no what it means help me.
The concept of following previous cases or precedents is called?
The doctrine of stare decisis.
Courts do not depart from precedents?
Lower courts do not department from precedents, they must follow the rulings of higher courts. Lateral courts have precedent that is not binding and does not have to be followed.
What is the name for a Supreme Court decisions that will be used to decide future cases?
US Supreme Court opinions (decisions) set binding precedents because all lower courts are required to follow the same reasoning when deciding similar cases under the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand).
The doctrine of stare decisis binds judges to follow the prior decisions of?
The doctrine of stare decisis binds judges to follow precedents set by higher appellate courts under which jurisdiction the particular lower court falls.For example, in the federal court system US Supreme Court decisions create binding precedents for all US District Courts and US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts; however, Circuit Court decisions only set binding precedents for the US District Courts within their territorial jurisdiction.The exception to this is decisions of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has nationwide jurisdiction (below that of the Supreme Court) over special subject-matter cases.
What type of courts can make precedents?
In most legal systems, higher courts, such as supreme courts or appellate courts, have the authority to establish precedents. These precedents are binding on lower courts within the same jurisdiction, guiding future cases with similar legal issues. In some jurisdictions, administrative courts may also create precedents within their specific areas of law. However, trial courts typically do not create binding precedents, although their decisions can influence future cases.
