0
Why would a judge want to look for a precedent when deciding a case?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
so he/she has someone else to look at the evidence with and make a better decision
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 14y agoIn a common law system, judges are obliged to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject.
Anonymous
kjxb
Anonymous
xxxxxxxxxx
Anonymous
huhbihb
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why would a judge want to look for a precedent when deciding case?
so he/she has someone else to look at the evidence with and make a better decision
Why would a judge want to look for precedent when deciding a case?
so he/she has someone else to look at the evidence with and make a better decision
What does the system of judicial precedent mean?
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.
Judicial restraint means that a judge will consider what when making decisions about a case?
precedent
What does it mean when a judge follows a legal precedent?
"Precedent" means "that which comes before". In making an interpretation of the law, judges will examine the decisions of judges who decided similar cases. If the case is sufficiently similar (the legal term for this is "on point"), the judge will adopt the reasoning of the earlier judge. This is called following a precedent.
When does it mean a judge follows a legal precedent?
"Precedent" means "that which comes before". In making an interpretation of the law, judges will examine the decisions of judges who decided similar cases. If the case is sufficiently similar (the legal term for this is "on point"), the judge will adopt the reasoning of the earlier judge. This is called following a precedent.
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.
How can a precedent help a judge make decisions?
It means that a similar case, or cases, containing similar circumstances has been decided previously and the judge can consider this previous decision (i.e.- (precedent) in coming to his decision.
What is the role of judicial precedents?
A precedent is when the outcome of a case helps set the rules for future cases. A judge doesnâ??t have to use a precedent in the ruling, but precedents can be used to predict how a case will turn out.
How can a court avoid following a precedent?
the practice statement 1966..... and if a judge doesnt want to follow a binding precedent he can distinguish it by finding a significant difference in the facts of an earlier case and say that the ratio of the earlier case doesnt apply to the case before him
What a precedent is and how it relates to interpreting law?
Precedent, in legal terms, is the decision of judges in similar court cases to yours. If there is a previous case that is similar with a decision, the judge must follow the precedent unless the facts are distinguishable.
What is the term used for judges following an earlier ruling in a similar case?
The earlier case sets a precedent and often judges following the earlier ruling; however, there are cases where the judge will make a different ruling. Every case and judge is different and it just depends on that particular cases. However, if a judge is going against a previous ruling it would give the lawyers room to question the judge's ruling. The side that looses in this case would probably bring up the other case's ruling and use it to help their side.Additional Information:When a higher court, such as the US Supreme Court, makes a decision it sets a binding precedent for all the courts below it under the doctrine of stare decisis(Latin: let the decision stand). Lower courts are required to adhere to binding precedents although, as noted above, they don't always do so.Following precedent is considered exercising judicial restraint, while certain instances of overturning precedents are considered judicial activism (sometimes called "legislating from the bench"), a practice generally frowned upon.
