No. It has warped the US legal system badly.
A. Lakshminath has written: 'Precedent in Indian Law' 'Precedent in the Indian legal system' -- subject(s): Stare decisis
The Common Law
It works and is used frequently.
The Common Law
Not many people know but I think it's because it was a new thing
he would recieve 10,000 mlds
binding(mandatory) precedent persuasive precedent
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.
tactics and training. and firm belief in service for Germany & Hitler
The continued use of precedent in our legal system is crucial as it promotes stability and predictability, allowing individuals and businesses to rely on established legal principles when making decisions. It also ensures consistency in judicial decisions, fostering public trust in the justice system. However, a significant disadvantage of the precedent system is that it can perpetuate outdated or unjust rulings, as courts may be hesitant to overturn established precedents even when societal values have evolved, potentially leading to inequities and a lack of responsiveness to contemporary issues.
an appeal to precedent is a type of an appeal to precedent is a type of
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.