it depends on how old the precedent is, how closely related is it to the case you are looking at and the difference between your precedent and crown/defense lawyer's precedent

binding(mandatory) precedent

persuasive precedent

The principles under the doctrine of binding precedent are that the courts must use past solutions. They apply when the law is not unreasonable or inconvenient.

That depends on which court you're referring to. In the federal court system, the US Supreme Court sets binding (or mandatory) precedent for all lower courts; the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts set binding precedent for all US District Courts within their jurisdiction, but only persuasive precedent elsewhere; the US District Courts do not set binding precedent at all, they only set persuasive precedent.

a legal precedent is principles of law set down by a higher court that are binding on lower courts in the same hierachy

If no other case has changed it.

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.

If the Federal Court precedent is applicable to your situation it can be cited - HOWEVER - although they may consider it, it does NOT mean that it would be binding on them.

Ratio decidendi refers to the legal reasoning behind a court's decision that forms the binding precedent in future cases. Obiter dicta are statements or opinions made by the court that are not essential to the decision and do not create binding precedent, but may provide guidance or insight on the case.

Essentially binding precedent means that if a higher court has ruled on what is substantially the same legal issue, then that ruling is binding on the lower courts. This is designed to build up a consistent body of law, so for example, we dont have 30 different interpretations of 1 section of statute.

Binding Precedent is a judgement that must be followed. The Supreme Court is not bound by any other court or it's own previous judgements. However in European matters it is bound by the EU court.

Earlier cases can be cited as precedent in later cases, either binding or advisory.

this is not absolutely binding on a court but may be applied for instance if there is a case with no binding authority if the judge believes they have applied the correct legal principle and reasoning.

There is no reason why a text message 'contract' should not be legally binding, however there have not been any precedent setting cases on the issue.

The legal term for a condition in a contract that must be fulfilled for the contract to be binding is called a "condition precedent."

Read Malaysian Legal System book, you lazy ass.

Daniels v white(1938) decision was based upon Donoghue v Stephenson

second circuit and supreme court

There is no doctrine of non-binding precedents. Non-binding opinions that may be used as guidelines for deciding future cases are called persuasive precedents. Binding precedents are upheld under the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand).

Mandatory refers to binding statutes and case law within the same jurisdiction.

The way the question is asked: USING judicial precedent, means that the judge is following the lead of a decision in a similar case that has already been decided upon and he is ruling the same way using the other case as a guideline. If the questioner meant to ask what does SETTING judicial precedent mean. . . that means that the judge was rendering a decision in a case of a type that had never been tried, or ruled upon, in the past, and that his verdict would set the 'precedent' by which all future cases might be judged. Judges, by the way, do NOT necessarily have to follow precedent in making rulings.

Lower courts do not department from precedents, they must follow the rulings of higher courts. Lateral courts have precedent that is not binding and does not have to be followed.

A decision made by a higher court sets a binding precedent for the inferior court(s).

the practice statement 1966..... and if a judge doesnt want to follow a binding precedent he can distinguish it by finding a significant difference in the facts of an earlier case and say that the ratio of the earlier case doesnt apply to the case before him

Obiter dictum refers to remarks made by a judge in a legal opinion that are not essential to the decision of the case. These comments are considered persuasive but not binding precedent.

Ratio decidendi sets forth the legal reasoning for the decision in a case. (Obiter dictum is a judicial opinion or incidental comment that is not legally binding.)

You cannot avoid judicial precedent that is "binding." This includes precedent that is made by a higher court in your jurisdiction (legal region) or the Supreme Court of the United States. If the precedent is directly adverse (contrary) to your position, you have a couple of options. First, you could find a way to "distinguish" the binding precedent. This means finding a relevant detail about your position that makes it somehow different from the adverse cases in your jurisdiction. Here, you have to look at those cases and examine the fact-patterns, comparing those to the fact-pattern in your case/position. You might also have to come up with some compelling arguments for why the "holding" (the legally binding decision(s)) of the previous cases (precedent) should be narrowed or construed a certain way so that they either support or are no longer adverse to your position. Another way to avoid judicial precedent is to make a compelling legal/policy argument for why it should be overturned. For example, the Court that decided Brown v. Board of education overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson for compelling reasons. However, depending on which court you are in, and because of the doctrine of "stare decisis" (to 'stand by the decision'), this can be very difficult. That's why lawyers get paid the big bucks. You cannot avoid judicial precedent that is "binding." This includes precedent that is made by a higher court in your jurisdiction (legal region) or the Supreme Court of the United States. If the precedent is directly adverse (contrary) to your position, you have a couple of options. First, you could find a way to "distinguish" the binding precedent. This means finding a relevant detail about your position that makes it somehow different from the adverse cases in your jurisdiction. Here, you have to look at those cases and examine the fact-patterns, comparing those to the fact-pattern in your case/position. You might also have to come up with some compelling arguments for why the "holding" (the legally binding decision(s)) of the previous cases (precedent) should be narrowed or construed a certain way so that they either support or are no longer adverse to your position. Another way to avoid judicial precedent is to make a compelling legal/policy argument for why it should be overturned. For example, the Court that decided Brown v. Board of education overturned the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson for compelling reasons. However, depending on which court you are in, and because of the doctrine of "stare decisis" (to 'stand by the decision'), this can be very difficult. That's why lawyers get paid the big bucks.

an appeal to precedent is a type of an appeal to precedent is a type of

"Persuasive precedents" are decisions that are not binding on a court hearing a similar case, but which contain compelling legal reasoning or logic that the court finds convincing (persuasive) enough to apply to the case at bar.

For example, a US District Court judge may agree with a decision made in a comparable state court case, adopt the reasoning, and cite the first case in the opinion of the second case.

Only appellate courts with jurisdiction over a lower court may creating binding precedents (decisions that must be followed); a court may choose to follow a non-binding precedent that doesn't conflict with a binding precedent or law. These are commonly referred to as "persuasive precedents."

precedent

Precedent

Not necessarily. The US Supreme Court sometimes issues per curiam opinions that are binding (on the instant case) but unsigned; however, these decisions do not set precedent for future cases.

not much. as the common was already protecting the rights of the people. the Act just made it binding on both judiciary and the parliament and also the government .

precedent

precedent

Yes courts can depart from Precedents. However this depends on the level of the court and the precedent being relied upon.

For instance the Supreme Court is not bound by any precedent, not even the one it set, yet the lower courts to it are bound by such precedents.

Also the precedent being relied upon could have been overtaken by events e.g by change of law, time or any other factor hence making it obsolete and therefore courts departing from such precedent.

Answer

The term, "nation of sheep" implies a total lack of autonomous decision-making, based upon the metaphorical creatures known to continue blindly once pointed on the way.

This demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the implied premise of the question, because it only takes one new case to overturn a bad precedent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents over a hundred times.

However, the value of binding precedent is that the outcome of cases become that much more predictable, and thus avoidable, at least in theory.

For each case that law books capture in appellate reporters, there may be hundreds that were never filed or never made it to appeals because the lawyers involved understood the risks of challenging precedents.

Giving your electronic signature is legally binding, just as is your real signature. However, the website should have a statement of some kind warning you of this, and getting your consent (given or implied) that your electronic signature will be used as such.

This to a large extent sets a precedent for the rest of the exhibition

Precedent

Legal precedent is an existing legal ruling. It comes from case law, or past judicial decisions and cases. Precedent is binding, unless overturned by a higher court. I don't think no lawyer will find Dahmer's case useful establishing a legal case using a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts unless the lawyer is seeking Life imprisonment in a case were a death sentence is more probable.

Precedent

No it can not. A Samsung galaxy precedent does not have a front facing camera

LNWR Improved Precedent Class was created in 1887.

Primary persuasive authority refers to legal sources that courts consider to be most authoritative and influential when making decisions, such as statutes, regulations, and binding precedent from higher courts. These sources carry more weight in legal arguments compared to secondary sources like legal commentary or persuasive precedent. Courts typically rely on primary persuasive authority to guide their decisions and establish legal interpretations.

Yes especially when a Superior Court had issued on the case and made it a precedent then should the inferior court must abide by it.

The root word of "precedent" is "precede," which comes from the Latin word "praecedere," meaning "to go before" or "to precede."

A precedent is a principle or rule that was established in a previous legal case. Precedent is used in cases with similar facts and background. The use of precedent allows for stability in common law rulings.

Yes, patent binding, perfect binding and adhesive binding are the same thing.