There are many disadvantages with precedent. It is good that our law provides certainty but critics think that the law is too hard to change, too inflexible. The House of Lords is able to overrule a precedent changing a previous decision, power given in the Practise Statement, but critics argue that judges in the House of Lords do not use their power to change existing precedents even when they agree old laws are wrong.
The last disadvantage is that law cases date back hundreds of years this may complicate things and make it difficult to find an appropriate case on which to use as precedent. There may be several decisions on the same part of law as it may have been going on for so long, this would make things very complicated. There are such a large number of cases to illustrate the law, this makes it too complicated.
· When judges are distinguishing two cases, he needs to be careful that he is using particular case for the right reasons and should not distinguish two cases on a very small point which is hard to justify.
Yes it can be. This is called CASE LAW. And this is when a case comes in that perhaps there are laws for indirectly. When a judge makes a ruling on the case then this is called CASE LAW and future judges will likely follow this ruling for similar cases.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the close source software ?
anything that's not a case or statute is a secondary source, eg law text books, journals etc.
No, medical records are not a source of law. They may be used as evidence in legal proceedings, but they do not have the authority to establish or interpret laws. Legal sources include statutes, regulations, case law, and legal precedent.
In short, the constitution is the law of the land, and establishes rules and regulations of what the government can and cannot do. In a Democracy, the source of power comes from the people. In a Republic, the source of power comes from the law, or in this case, the constitution.
It is a source of CIVIL law, yes.
British Common Law. Many of the laws come from case law that has been published. In theory if there is no statute and you can find a relevant case that goes back to the Middle Ages you can cite that in your case and win. There have been cases from the 1600's cited to establish precedent and strengthen your arguments. As far as the oldest statutory law in the United States it's the Mayflower Compact.
Case law is subordinate to statute. In all common law countries, precedent serves as law. But, statutes can overturn precedent. If there is a statute (law) on the books, then the judge will apply that law. If there is not a law against a certain activity, the judge will then look to previous rulings from previous courts and follow their direction. Case law can, however, be overturned. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court of the United States established the precedent that states could segregate the races, so long as they provided separate but equal facilities for black and white people. In the 1950s, the Supreme Court overturned this precedent with Brown v. Board. So case law is not a very strong source of law. It is lower than statutory law, and it can be overturned.
no
"Laws" are not derived from "case law" - DECISIONS are derived from case law.
What are the advantage of source documents
give me the answer yaar