0
In any judicial system that uses precedents (or any other variation of common law), law reporting becomes vital to maintain consistency across the system. Say, for instance, that a judge or magistrate makes a particular decision in case X. This decision, and the argumentation behind it, needs to be accurately conveyed to other judges or magistrates across the land so that they can use similar reasoning and make similar decisions in cases that are similar to case X. If that doesn't happen, then different judges might make a drastically different rulings in cases that are very similar, which would create confusion about the meaning and application of law everywhere. This would have a deleterious effect on society as a whole, since no one could be sure what results they might get out of the legal system.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is murder a common law crime?
Yes. In the U.K, there is no legislation that forbids Murder, only the Common Law of Judicial precedent.
Merits and demerits of judicial precedent as a source of law in Nigeria?
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 Demerits: Overreliance on precedent can lead to inflexibility in the legal system, may perpetuate outdated laws or decisions, and limited to cases that have been previously decided, which can sometimes restrict the evolution of the law to meet current societal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.
Should the doctrine of judicial precedent be abolished in nigeria law?
Many countries are happy with judicial precedent. If it were not in place then judgements in previous cases would not be relevant in current cases. This could lead to situations where people were found not guilty in the past for exactly the same accusation for which they could be found guilty now. That can not be fair. If the public think that a particular judgement leading to a judicial precedent is not correct, they can pass a law in the legislature to correct the mistake.
Does judicial restraint rely on the principle of stare decisis?
Doctrinalism relies on the principle of stare decisis.Judicial restraint relies on a narrow interpretation of the text of the Constitution and the Framers' inferred intent in decision-making. If the precedent being relied upon under stare decisis was made using judicial restraint, then adhering to the precedent also involves judicial restraint; if the controlling precedent being used represents an instance of judicial activism, then upholding the precedent also requires a (lesser) degree of judicial activism.The concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism relate to decisions based on a particular theoretical view of the Constitution and its purpose. Stare decisis relates to consistency in upholding case law, regardless of whether the precedent was originally determined via activism or restraint.
What has the author James Louis Montrose written?
James Louis Montrose has written: 'Judicial law making and law applying' 'Precedent in English law' -- subject- s -: Addresses, essays, lectures, Law 'Judicial implementation of legislative policy' 'The operation of description in a contract of sale of goods'
What is the English system of law base on?
mainly statutes and judicial precedent. Basically, a statute is a law created by the Government. Judicial Precedent is a little more complex. Basically in a court case, a judge may set down new precedent. This means that the Judge is effectively creating new law. Now, the court system is based on a hierarchy with the highest court being the Supreme Court. Each court lower down in the hierarchy has to follow precedent from the Courts above it. A judge in a higher up court can overrule a decision from a court below it. Judicial precedent is also known as common law. A good example of this is murder. Murder is not defined in any statute (people believe that it is defined under the Homicide Act 1957 but this only sets out defenses that are available to murder) and is based on precedent. The definition of Murder under English law comes from a sevententh-century judge named Lord Coke
Is Precedent the same as case law?
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.Common law is developed from local customs.Common law introduce the system of precedent.The only remedy is damages in common law.Common law is inflexible.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.Equity law is developed as a form of appeal to remedy.It is more flexible then common law.It introduce new remedies.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.Reports: There must be reliable reports of earlier decisions.Rules: There must be rules for extracting a legal principle from a previous set of facts and applying it to current facts.Classification: Precedent must be classified into those that are binding and those that are not.
What type of law references formal rules embodied in judicial decisions rendered by courts?
The type of law that references formal rules embodied in judicial decisions rendered by courts is called case law or common law. Case law is derived from the decisions made by judges in previous cases and serves as a precedent for future judicial decisions. It plays a crucial role in shaping and interpreting the law in countries with a common law legal system.
What is the difference between a binding precedent and a persuasive precedent?
A binding precedent is precedent that a court MUST follow (it is law). All prior judicial decisions in a specific court's jurisdiction heard at that court's level or higher are considered to be binding precedent. In contrast, persuasive precedent is precedent that a court need not follow (it is NOT law, but, as the name suggests, may be persuasive because it suggests a line of reasoning). All prior judicial decisions OUTSIDE of that court's jurisdiction or from a LOWER court are considered to be persuasive only.
What is a body of law based on custom tradition and precedent set in past court cases?
Precedent is a component of common law
Which US Supreme Court justice set the precedent of judicial review?
Fourth Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court), John Marshall, is often credited with setting the precedent of judicial review due to his written opinion for the case Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).In fact, judicial review is an old English common law practice that had already been adopted by the American federal court system. John Marshall simply formally affirmed it as a power of the Judicial Branch.
Elevated the supreme court to a higher status balancing the powers of the other branches?
The Judicial Review elevated the Supreme Court to a higher status, balancing the powers of the other branches. Judicial review is an example of check and balances in a modern governmental system.
