0
What else can I help you with?
What is the difference between Common law vs roman law?
Common law is a legal system derived from judicial decisions and precedent, where courts interpret and apply the law. Roman law, on the other hand, was a legal system developed in ancient Rome based on written statutes and codes. Common law relies heavily on precedent, while Roman law emphasized codification and abstract legal principles.
What type of precedent do trial courts create?
Trial courts create legal precedent known as case law. This precedent is based on the decisions made in individual cases and can be used as a guide for future similar cases.
What is a body of law based on custom tradition and precedent set in past court cases?
Precedent is a component of common law
What is a system of a law based on precedent and customs called?
The Common Law
What is a system of law based on precedent a customs called?
The Common Law
What is another term for case law?
"Precedent"?
What is the law made by judiciary known as?
Precedent
What is the alternative of precedent law?
Where the law does not set a precedent to be followed by Courts lower in the Court hierarchy, it must turn to the Statute (or legislation) that is prescribed in that area
How does common law different from roman law?
Common law refers to law developed by judges through decisions of courts that are called precedent. Roman law, or civil law, differs from common law in that it is based solely on a legal code instead of precedent.
What are three principles of common law?
common law is based on precedent rather on statute law
What law is based on the current standards or customs of a society?
Common law is a type of law that is based on the current standards or customs of a society. It is developed through judicial decisions and precedent rather than through legislation.
Is an appeal to precedent a type of inductive generalization?
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)
