Delegated legislation and judicial precedent both operate within the framework of law but serve different purposes. Delegated legislation allows governmental bodies to create detailed rules and regulations under the authority of primary legislation, ensuring laws can be adapted to specific situations. Similarly, judicial precedent involves courts applying established legal principles from previous cases to current cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the law. Both mechanisms enable the legal system to function efficiently and respond to changing circumstances while maintaining a degree of stability.
Precedent
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.
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.
Merits: Judicial precedent provides consistency and predictability in legal decisions, helps in the development of the law, and ensures equality before the law by treating similar cases alike. Demerits: Overreliance on precedent can lead to inflexibility in the legal system, may perpetuate outdated laws or decisions, and limited to cases that have been previously decided, which can sometimes restrict the evolution of the law to meet current societal needs.
Precedent
Precedent
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.
Ratio decidendi sets forth the legal reasoning for the decision in a case. (Obiter dictum is a judicial opinion or incidental comment that is not legally binding.)
Legal precedent is an existing legal ruling. It comes from case law, or past judicial decisions and cases. Precedent is binding, unless overturned by a higher court. I don't think no lawyer will find Dahmer's case useful establishing a legal case using a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts unless the lawyer is seeking Life imprisonment in a case were a death sentence is more probable.
The doctrine of judicial precedent* refers to the process by which judges follow previously decided cases. Courts at the top of the hierarchy are of more significance so their decisions carry greater legal weight than lower or inferior court decisions. In the UK, the House of Lords binds lower courts, but not itself. Even though its ability to depart from previous decisions is wide it uses this power with great discretion, following guidelines laid out in the Practice Statement Judicial Precedent of 1966. *Another name of the doctrine is "stare decisis". ("Stare" is pronounced "starry" or "staray"; decisis rhymes with crisis with the "c" pronounced as an "s".) It is Latin for "the decision stands".
"Precedent" means coming before, something which precedes. In law it means a past decision in a similar case.
The principle of precedent, also known as stare decisis, is a legal doctrine that requires courts to follow established case law when making decisions in similar cases. This ensures consistency and predictability in the law, as lower courts are bound by the rulings of higher courts within the same jurisdiction. By adhering to precedent, the judicial system promotes stability and fairness, allowing individuals and entities to rely on established legal principles. However, courts can deviate from precedent if there are compelling reasons to do so, such as changes in societal values or legal interpretations.