Want this question answered?
It depends which supreme court you are referring to. Countries have different legislation and hierarchy for courts of law.
Basically how precedents relate to the hierarchy of courts is that all the lower level courts within the judicial system applies the rule of law or precedent that was created at the court above them. For example, since the privy council is the highest level in the hierarchy of courts, in fact, the court of appeal, the supreme, resident magistrate and even petty sessions courts would apply the decisions made in similar cases.
No, the principle of stare decisis, which means to stand by things decided, is relevant in the hierarchy of courts. Lower courts are usually bound to follow the legal precedents set by higher courts within their jurisdiction. This helps ensure consistency and predictability in the law.
The hierarchy of judicial system in the United States has the senior judges at the top. They are followed by the chief judges, and finally the clerk of courts.
Most state courts are generally divided into 4 tiers hierarchies. The lowest courts within a state are often the top tiers of the hierarchy.
well the problem mainly lies in the hierarchy of the courts
Considering the Australian and New Zealand Governments, AUS and NZD are part of the commonwealth, represented by the union jack on these two country's national flags. It can be then determined that these two countries have a constitutional democracy/monarchy. Another country that this type of gov't includes the mother country, England. Laws, Legislation, Acts, Articles and documentations go through the same process of Amendment or acceptance. This refers to the process of the prime minister developing a bill, and passing through the lower house of Representatives and the senate, and double dissolution can be determined if both houses decline the legislation. The Court Hierarchy is therefore very similar, with both Australia and New Zealand having Local Courts (Inferior) District Courts (Intermediate) Supreme Courts (Supreme) and the High Court. However England still has it traditional and formal court hierarchy system with a Queens Council, Privy council, High Court (Supreme), Crown Court and Three Divisions of District Court (Intermediate) and Local Court (Inferior). Considering America, from the English invasion in the 1600 and 1700's, America had this traditional court hierarchy system and at this time so did Australia and New Zealand, however America completely changed this court hierarchy system in the 1850's to only Supreme Courts, District/State/County Courts and Local Courts.
Supreme Courts generally, by definition are the highest court within their hierarchy (hence the name supreme)
Yes, there is typically a hierarchy of courts within a legal system. This hierarchy usually consists of trial courts at the bottom, which hear initial cases, followed by intermediate appellate courts that review decisions from the trial courts, and finally, the highest court, often called the supreme court, which handles appeals from the intermediate appellate courts and has the final say on legal matters within the jurisdiction.
I was born.... But you probably mean the passing of the Australia Acts. The Australia Act was a piece of legislation passed by both the Commonwealth Parliament (Australia) and the British Parliament. Its effect was to remove the ability for the British Parliament to legislate with effect in Australia, the British government to rule in Australia and to remove British courts as courts of appeal from Australian courts.
Where the law does not set a precedent to be followed by Courts lower in the Court hierarchy, it must turn to the Statute (or legislation) that is prescribed in that area
The US District Courts (of which there 94) are the lowest level of the Federal courts.