Court decision that stands as an example to be followed in future, similar cases.
an appeal to precedent is a type of an appeal to precedent is a type of
No. An appeal to precedent is a type of analogy. This is the practice of using a case that has already been decided in a court of law (the precedent) as an analog with which to compare the case in question. If the case in question is sufficiently similar to the precedent, and the precedent stands on the authority of the court's ruling, then it may be argued by analogy that the case in question should receive the same ruling. It would be inconsistent, hence illogical, to treat like cases (the analogs) differently. (McGraw Hill Moral reasoning)
When an appeal court decides a case, it issues a written opinion that sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. All lower courts in the jurisdiction where the precedent was issuesd must follow it
binding(mandatory) precedent persuasive precedent
it depends on how old the precedent is, how closely related is it to the case you are looking at and the difference between your precedent and crown/defense lawyer's precedent
precedent
Precedent
precedent
No. It is the only court in the UK hierarchy that can't. It's bound by it's prev decisions.
When the Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal for a case, it means that they have denied the request for review. This denial does not establish any legal binding or precedent, and the decision of the lower court stands. The denial by the Supreme Court does not provide an explanation or indicate agreement with the lower court's decision.
Look at the charge for which you (or your client) were convicted. This will show the name of the statute and the number. When you go to that Statute in the case law, you will see other cases that established precedent, and you can "Shepardize" those.
This to a large extent sets a precedent for the rest of the exhibition