7

The core principle of stare decisis is that the law should not depend on what judge you got; two cases with the same facts should have the same outcome. In the common-law tradition, there weren't really written statutes; there was only "what's been done in the past," and so the only reference you'd have to what the law should be in some situation is past ...


6

It is the lower courts' interpretation of a senior court's judgment—specifically the ratio—that determines what is the precedent. If a court doesn't want its opinion to bind lower courts, it can be clear in its judgment that this is not what was intended. For example, a court could say that this judgment turns on the particular facts of this ...


5

The standard is this, from Teague v. Lane: If a case announces a “new rule,” an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said, the new rule will apply to all cases pending on direct review; but in most cases it will not apply to cases already final. There are two exceptions: First, a “new rule” will apply retroactively if it is “substantive,” ...


5

The alternative is the same whether just one lower court or many lower courts ignore SCOTUS precedent. An aggrieved parts will appeal the lower court ruling, and the matter will work its way up the ladder until SCOTUS directly rules on this application of the law. This sort of happens all the time, when lower courts don't apply the ostensive "final ruling" ...


5

First, the relevant term is "precedent". You have misstated the nature of "precedent". Precedent is simply the addition of further information about what the law is. A legislature may set forth a law that say "If A, then (if you B, you will suffer consequence C)". But it is not self-evident in a given instance whether A is true, or B is true, or what exactly ...


4

Stare decisis is more than just the authority for later decisions to refer to previous ones; it is, to a certain degree, an obligation to. Which is to say, that as a rule, judges (and more often than not their clerks) will spend a lot of their time looking through old cases in order to find out what case law has decided, what the precedent is. At this point, ...


4

This would establish a new precedent (I assume) You assume correctly. However, a precedent is only binding on lower courts and persuasive on courts at the same level so a trial judge precedent is not very far-reaching. Does this statue takes precedence over (overrules) the previous court precedent? Not exactly. The precedent was good for the old (common)...


4

There isn't to the best of my knowledge, any single document that tells courts to follow precedant or when and how to do so. Each State, and the Federal government, has a set of court rules of procedure. These will indicate, among many other things, the form that should be used in citing previous cases, but that is about form, not content -- about how to ...


4

Law (regardless of its type) supersedes contract, provided it has jurisdiction over the persons bound by that contract. Contract provisions that are counter to law are generally held to be void. State law has authority over an employer's policies or hand book. However, there may be exceptions in state law (so I would double check). A frequent exception (...


4

While an appellate court may have the opportunity to reverse any individual trial judge every few years, I know that trial judges, in their numerous workday rulings, reverse appellate courts every day. Gregory Kellam Scott, “Judge-Made Law: Constitutional Duties and Obligations Under the Separations of Powers Doctrine,” 49 DEPAUL L. REV.517 (1999) (a ...


4

Firstly, true artificial intelligence does not yet exist. The term "artificial intelligence" is a bit of a buzzword, used to refer to things like neural networks and decision trees, which are really just elaborate statistical calculations. They do not have a "mind of their own" by any stretch of the imagination, though it is possible to make them appear as ...


3

Note the following argument: the landmark 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, which ruled that state officials cannot obstruct “the measures of a government [the federal government] created by others as well as themselves.” “In other words,” Kalt and Amar summarize, “a single state cannot use its power to derail the functioning of the United States.” (...


3

If a law is struck-down as unconstitutional, but all the precedent used to find it unconstitutional gets reversed; what becomes of the law? In U.S. law, the law has effect again, unless it has been amended or repealed in the meantime. Is it totally dead, needing be passed anew? In the U.S., no. It is not totally dead. It is merely dormant. It stays ...


3

The decision of a court consists of several things: The orders made A summary of the evidence The judge's reasoning from the evidence to their conclusions of what the facts of the case are The judge's reasoning from the evidence to their conclusions of what the law applying to those facts is The judge's reasoning from those findings of facts and law to the ...


3

A common law court can use any common law jurisdictions as a source of persuasive authority. In practice, the closer (in both legal and cultural terms) a jurisdiction is the more likely it is to be used because a) common law drifts over time and B) legislators change it in different ways. For example, the Australian states and Canadian provinces will look ...


3

tl;dr: Precedent takes effect on the decision date. You didn't list a jurisdiction, so I'll give a U.S. example. In Citizens United v. FEC (U.S. 2010), there are three dates listed in the header: Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 Precedent attaches to a decision date. That's also why we see 2010 in the case ...


3

When the US Supreme Court "overturns" a precedent, it does not usually mean that every case which previously cited the older holding instantly vanishes or is upset. Indeed, often the older case is not truly overturned, but "distinguished", meaning the circumstances of the new case are different enough that the old rule does not apply. But, at least in theory,...


3

All precedents are made in court judgements Courts exist in a hierarchy which means there are two kinds of precedent: binding and persuasive. A binding precedent is one set in the same hierarchy by a higher level court. A persuasive precedent is one set at the same or lower level in the hierarchy or in a completely different hierarchy. For example, a ...


2

There are a few ways to look at this, from a US perspective (in case it's of any comparative value): First, in many court systems not all decisions are published; and non-published decisions are not citable authority. This was especially common in the days when research was primarily done with books, as a matter of practical necessity in controlling size ...


2

tl;dr Overturned precedent doesn't automatically imply any change in outcomes for the parties involved in the subsequent case. If eligible (details, details...), the party that stands to gain can sometimes request this be taken into account. Regardless of a particular case's status, it does mean people need to figure out what went wrong and take that into ...


2

Sometimes dissents are issued to call attention to a bad decision in the hope that a higher court or the legislature will address the problem. Sometimes dissents are issued to clarify what the dissenting judge understands to be the scope of the decision (sometimes arguing that it is narrow, other times arguing that it is broad). Sometimes dissents are ...


2

On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Korematsu by issuing a majority decision on another case[1]. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision of Hawaii v. Trump:(commonly known as the Third Travel Ban) “The forcible relocation of U.S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively ...


2

The decision is not “on the books”: case law is not statute law. The precedent stays and remains binding unless and until a case arises where the SCOTUS reverses it or Congress writes a law that bans mass incarceration. Assuming the underlying law on which the decision rested is still in existence and enforced of course. The primary purpose of the judicial ...


2

How can you tell if an AI agent is biased in its decisions? How would the concept of discrimination apply to an AI agent? How would you prosecute it? A subject matter expert would scrutinize or audit the implementation of the algorithm and testify accordingly (see hszmv's allusion to the independent reviewer). From there, counsel representing the ...


2

Yes, such as this limitation on free speech. Initially, the limitation was "Clear and Present Danger" test (Schenk v. United States, 1919) which held that speech inciting lawless action was not protected speech and thus could be crimilized speech (i.e. Schenk publishing anti-draft fliers during World War I, which advocated draft dodging which at the time ...


2

The PressGazette has a brief but illuminating article which gives information on : ...over 64 journalists arrested in the UK between April 2011 and October 2014) including 25 former News of the World journalists and 25 from the Sun. The majority of these were for unlawfully intercepting communications, intercepting mobile phone voicemail messages without ...


2

Shapiro v. Thompson was overruled in part by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974). See the Wikipedia article. In Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (1973), the court notes and did not object to durational residence requirements imposed by states to qualify for the benefits of lower university tuition. In Vlandis the Court wrote: Like many other States, ...


2

"Just because some other people responded to x with y, then any time we see something significantly similar to x, we always respond with y." This statement does not look correct to me. I think you might actually mean something like the following: "In response to dispute X, the Court has adopted legal theory T that led to ruling Y. Therefore any time in ...


2

Doesn’t the use of precedent constitute a bandwagon fallacy? No First, you appear to be conflating two different phenomena: Argument ad populum which is the logical fallacy that “concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it”. The Bandwagon effect which is the phenomenon that the rate of uptake of an idea or belief ...


1

Your question shows a lack of understanding of precedent in common law systems and the difference between "facts" and "law" in a court case and indeed how crimes are prosecuted. Here's the potted summary - Within any given legal system there is a law or laws that makes certain acts or omissions a crime. For example, most (but not all) criminal offences in ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible