CASE LAW; Case law is the law based on decisions that have been made by judges in the past. case law can be subdivided into Common law and Equity.
COMMON LAW; Common law is the body of legal rules common to the whole country.
EQUITY LAW; Equity is the term which applies to a specific set of legal principles which were developed by the court of Chancery to supplement the common law. It is based on fair dealing between the parties. It added to and improve on the common law by introducing the concept of fairness.
PRECEDENT; A precedent is the previous court decision which other court is bound to follow by deciding a subsequent case in the same way.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT; Once a legal principle is decided by an appropriate court, it is called judicial precedent.
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT; The doctrine of judicial precedent mean that, a judge is bound to apply a decision from an earlier case, if there is no material difference between the cases and the previous case has created a judicial precedent.
Judicial precedent is based on three elements.
No.
"Precedent"?
case law is a precedent which we use it because of judges apply relvent law to relevent facts. so that it help us to render the same judgment for the same cause of actions
A precedent is a case that set the basis for any later case to be judged on, if it has the same principles. This is so cases of the same type may get the same outcome, depending on the circumstances.
The term of "Test Case" is a legal term. A test case is a legal case which sets precedent for other cases which have the same question of law involved.
Mandatory refers to binding statutes and case law within the same jurisdiction.
Common law precedent simply refers to the tradition in the Anglo-American legal system of following the rules set down in previous cases involving the same facts. As such, there is no particular time when common law precedent was enacted or affected as a general matter. Each particular precedent came into being when the first case that addressed the issue was decided.
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)
"Precedent" means coming before, something which precedes. In law it means a past decision in a similar case.
A "landmark" or a "precedent-setting" case.
Canada and most of its provinces (except Quebec) follow the common law system. One of the key principles of this system is that the law should be applied uniformly. Case law sets a precedent for how the law applies to specific situations, and courts make heavy use of it to ensure that the law is being consistently applied. Once a court rules on a matter of law, the courts are bound by the precedent, though a higher court may overturn the ruling and, of course, Parliament can amend the law.
Relating to the law of precedents, the concept of stare decisis relates to the binding nature of an earlier decision over a subsequent court called upon to decide over a similar issue.Stare Decisis operates at two levels:1. Binding precedent (or mandatory authority); and2. Persuasive precedentBinding precedent is when a similar matter has been decided upon by a superior court, a junior or subordinate court is required to follow the ruling.Persuasive precedent is when a similar matter has been decided by a different bench of the same court, or a court of the same rank or junior / subordinate court.