| rdfs:comment | - Stare decisis is a legal principle drawn from the latin phrase "stare decisis" which means, in rough translation, "staring contest." The legal reasoning involved in questions of stare decisis rely heavily on a jurist's ability to out-psyche any potential counter-claimant to his argument. Image:WWTS1sted1.png "Stare Decisis"is a part of Wikiality.com's dictionary, "Watch What You Say". For the full dictionary, click . Image:MonkeyTypewriter.jpg THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTIONThe monkeys working on"Stare Decisis"are currently throwing feces at each other. They will return shortly.
- Stare decisis is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. In the United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding." In the U.S. Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases:
- Stare decisis is a Latin legal maxim that roughly translates to "to stand by decided matters". In the law, it means that cases that are alike should be decided alike. It is a key concept behind the common law and its dependence on precedent; When deciding a case on the law, a judge, with the assistance of the lawyers, must review the existing law on similar matters and determine how the law should be applied to the case at hand.
|
| abstract | - Stare decisis is a legal principle drawn from the latin phrase "stare decisis" which means, in rough translation, "staring contest." The legal reasoning involved in questions of stare decisis rely heavily on a jurist's ability to out-psyche any potential counter-claimant to his argument. Image:WWTS1sted1.png "Stare Decisis"is a part of Wikiality.com's dictionary, "Watch What You Say". For the full dictionary, click . Image:MonkeyTypewriter.jpg THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTIONThe monkeys working on"Stare Decisis"are currently throwing feces at each other. They will return shortly.
- Stare decisis is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. In the United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding." In the U.S. Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases: For example, in the years 1946–92, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:
- Stare decisis is a Latin legal maxim that roughly translates to "to stand by decided matters". In the law, it means that cases that are alike should be decided alike. It is a key concept behind the common law and its dependence on precedent; When deciding a case on the law, a judge, with the assistance of the lawyers, must review the existing law on similar matters and determine how the law should be applied to the case at hand. The judge's decison contains the ratio decidendi (the reasons for the decision), and obiter dictum (discussion of the law not directly relevant to the decision). As a rule, future judges are bound by the "ratio", but not the "obiter". A trial judge who ignorse precedent is likely to be reversed by a higher court. However, the highest courts are not bound by their own precedent, although they are more likely to apply it. It is rare, but high courts do reverse the prior precedent on a matter when it turns out to be unworkable or unfair. In modern law, statutes are the most common way a legislature will deal with perceived faults in the common law as legislation on a matter overrules court precedent. However, cases decided before the statute is passed may still be referred to in order to resolve any ambiguities in the language of the legislation. If a proposed interpretation of ambiguous statutory language would have the effect of not changing the common law, courts will generally reject that interpretation as unreasonable.
|
