0
What is the doctrine of precedent that states the decisions of other courts which are not binding on a judge?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
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).
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are the principles under the doctrine of binding precedent?
The principles under the doctrine of binding precedent are that the courts must use past solutions. They apply when the law is not unreasonable or inconvenient.
Is court precedent mandatory or persuasive?
That depends on which court you're referring to. In the federal court system, the US Supreme Court sets binding (or mandatory) precedent for all lower courts; the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts set binding precedent for all US District Courts within their jurisdiction, but only persuasive precedent elsewhere; the US District Courts do not set binding precedent at all, they only set persuasive precedent.
What is the doctrine of binding precedent Australia law?
Essentially binding precedent means that if a higher court has ruled on what is substantially the same legal issue, then that ruling is binding on the lower courts. This is designed to build up a consistent body of law, so for example, we dont have 30 different interpretations of 1 section of statute.
Why is the doctrine of precedence important?
The doctrine of precedent is important because that's where the courts use to govern current cases or to apply the laws if and when a precedent case applies to it.
What determines a binding precedent?
A binding precedent is determined by the decision of a higher court on a legal issue. It sets a legal rule that must be followed by lower courts in the same jurisdiction when deciding similar cases. Binding precedents are typically created by appellate courts, such as a supreme court, and establish legal principles that guide future decisions.
What is the difference between a binding precedent and a persuasive precedent?
A binding precedent is precedent that a court MUST follow (it is law). All prior judicial decisions in a specific court's jurisdiction heard at that court's level or higher are considered to be binding precedent. In contrast, persuasive precedent is precedent that a court need not follow (it is NOT law, but, as the name suggests, may be persuasive because it suggests a line of reasoning). All prior judicial decisions OUTSIDE of that court's jurisdiction or from a LOWER court are considered to be persuasive only.
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 doctrine requires courts to follow authoritative prior decisions when ruling on a case?
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.
Are Texas trial courts decisions binding on the Texas Supreme Court?
No. The decisions of the Texas Supreme Court are binding on trial courts in Texas. That is why it is called the Supreme Court.
What is a legal precedent?
a legal precedent is principles of law set down by a higher court that are binding on lower courts in the same hierachy
Disadvantages of stare decisis?
Stare decisis is the legal doctrine of deferring to the judgment of past courts. This is often called "precedent." The disadvantage is that it makes the law inflexible, and can prevent courts from correcting poor decisions. It also causes them to repeat the mistakes of past courts.
In law What is primary persuasive?
Primary persuasive authority refers to legal sources that courts consider to be most authoritative and influential when making decisions, such as statutes, regulations, and binding precedent from higher courts. These sources carry more weight in legal arguments compared to secondary sources like legal commentary or persuasive precedent. Courts typically rely on primary persuasive authority to guide their decisions and establish legal interpretations.
