It means that a similar case, or cases, containing similar circumstances has been decided previously and the judge can consider this previous decision (i.e.- (precedent) in coming to his decision.
In most legal systems, higher courts, such as supreme courts or appellate courts, have the authority to establish precedents. These precedents are binding on lower courts within the same jurisdiction, guiding future cases with similar legal issues. In some jurisdictions, administrative courts may also create precedents within their specific areas of law. However, trial courts typically do not create binding precedents, although their decisions can influence future cases.
Precedents cases a case previously decided that serves as a legal guide for the resolution of subsequent cases.
Case law is based on the precedents and and legal principles applied by other courts in previous cases.
The term "stare decisis" is a legal principle that means "to stand by things decided." It refers to the doctrine that courts should follow precedents established in previous cases when making rulings on similar issues. This principle promotes consistency and predictability in the law, ensuring that similar cases are treated alike. By adhering to stare decisis, courts help maintain stability in the legal system.
Precedents are the decisions in cases in the PAST. These past cases are used and applied to cases in the courts to provide certainty and consistency in the system of law and justice (no matter what legal system this is regarding).
Precedents are often overturned to reflect changes in societal values, legal interpretations, or advancements in understanding. Courts may find that previous rulings are no longer applicable or equitable in light of new evidence or evolving norms. Additionally, higher courts may overturn precedents to correct judicial errors or to ensure consistency in the law. This process allows the legal system to adapt and respond to contemporary issues and perspectives.
Stare decisis, the legal principle of adhering to precedent, is not strictly applicable in international courts because these courts often operate within diverse legal systems and cultures, making uniformity in legal interpretation challenging. Additionally, international law is typically based on treaties, customary practices, and general principles rather than a rigid set of precedents. This flexibility allows international courts to adapt their rulings to the unique circumstances of each case, promoting the evolution of legal norms in a global context. Consequently, while past decisions may be persuasive, they do not bind future rulings in the same way as domestic courts.
Precedents cases a case previously decided that serves as a legal guide for the resolution of subsequent cases.
The doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand) encourages courts to adhere to established precedents when deciding cases.
Prior judicial decisions that support a case are known as "precedents." These are legal rulings made by courts in previous cases that establish a principle or rule that can be referenced in similar future cases. Courts often rely on precedents to ensure consistency and predictability in the law, applying established legal principles to current cases. This practice is a key aspect of the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to follow previous rulings unless there is a compelling reason to deviate.
The highest courts in a country are typically referred to as "supreme courts." These courts serve as the final appellate authority, interpreting the constitution and laws of the land. Their decisions set legal precedents that influence future cases and ensure the uniform application of law across the jurisdiction. In some countries, they may also be called "constitutional courts" or "courts of last resort."
Decisions made by a state appeals court are binding on lower courts within the same state, meaning that trial courts must follow the legal principles established by the appeals court. Additionally, the decisions are typically binding on subsequent cases involving similar facts and legal issues within that jurisdiction. However, these decisions do not bind other state appeals courts or federal courts, as they operate under different jurisdictions and legal precedents.