Well the opinions of the supreme court are really important. They can tell if your guilty or not.
Common law is developed through judicial decisions and opinions in court cases rather than through legislation.
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 US Supreme Court issued:87 Opinions in the 2005-2006 Term75 Opinions in the 2006-2007 Term73 Opinions in the 2007-2008 Term83 Opinions in the 2008-2009 TermThese numbers do not include In Chamber Opinions and other motions, but do include Per Curiam decisions.
Not necessarily. The US Supreme Court sometimes issues per curiam opinions that are binding (on the instant case) but unsigned; however, these decisions do not set precedent for future cases.
The decisions showed that businesses have rights.
The decisions showed that businesses have rights.
Precedents are the decisions in cases in the PAST. These past cases are used and applied to cases in the courts to provide certainty and consistency in the system of law and justice (no matter what legal system this is regarding).
Yes, appeals courts hear cases that are being appealed from lower court decisions. That's what they are for.
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).
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).
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).
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).