0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Whwt is meant by judicial precedent?
Judicial precedent refers to a legal case that establishes a principle or rule that can be applied by other court or other judicial body
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.
Judicial restraint means that a judge will consider what when making decisions about a case?
precedent
A judicial decision that establishes a rule for settling subsequent cases of a similar nature is a?
Precedent
What does the system of judicial precedent mean?
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.
A outline of the doctrine of judicial precedent as applies to courts in Jamaica?
Sort you head out jamica jamica
How did the precedent of judicial review affect checks and balances?
The precedent of judicial review, as established in the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, affected checks and balances by giving the judicial branch the power to interpret the laws passed by the executive and legislative branches. It also gave the court the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.
According to the doctrine of judicial restraint the judiciary should?
the doctrine of judicial restrain holds that judges should generally defer to precedent and to decisions made by legislature
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.
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 it called when judges make decisions that closely follow earlier court cases in the words of the Constitution?
Following precedent or stare decisis.
What precedent did Marbury vs. Madison set?
Marbury vs. Madison established the precedent of judicial review. Marbury vs. Madison was heard in 1803 before the US Supreme court.
