Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe court must refuse to decide the particular case.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoA departure from precedent normally only occurs if the precedent in question is thought to be incorrect or inapplicable. This is particularly evident through the legislatures who subscribe to the Legal Realism frame of thought. These judges are more inclined to take the economic and social realities into account when departing from the precedent. When Civil Rights decisions were being made, it was these Legal Realist that made the dramatic changes in law that occurred during that time.
When an appeal court decides a case, it issues a written opinion that sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. All lower courts in the jurisdiction where the precedent was issuesd must follow it
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.
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 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.
U.S Supreme Court
A legal precedent is called "controlling" in a court proceeding if the precedent is a decision rendered by a court to which any judgment of the court in which the proceeding is occurring can be appealed, either immediately or ultimately.
If a court decides not to review a case then it actually upholds the decision of the lower court.
This was the first sitting Supreme Court of the USA. Every decision made by that court established the original precedent for all subsequent cases in the USA. Perhaps the most important was Marbury vs Madison where the precedent was established for the Supreme Court to review laws for "Constitutionality".
Precedent
This was the first sitting Supreme Court of the USA. Every decision made by that court established the original precedent for all subsequent cases in the USA. Perhaps the most important was Marbury vs Madison where the precedent was established for the Supreme Court to review laws for "Constitutionality".
LAw based on court decrees and precedent is