A Legal Doctrine of Precedent

Stare decisis (/ˈstɛərri dɪˈsaɪsɪs, ˈstɑːreɪ/) is a legal principle according to which judges are required to respect the precedent set by previous decisions. The words come from the formulation of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis and non quieta movere: “to remain faithful to decisions and not to disturb those who are not disturbed”. [4] In the legal context, this means that the courts should respect precedents and not interfere with settled issues. [4] The principle can be divided into two components:[5] A precedent is “persuasive” if it has been set by a superior court that is not higher in the hierarchy of courts. This means that the precedent needs to be seriously examined, but there is no need to follow it. For example, a precedent set by the Supreme Court of New South Wales is persuasive but not binding on the Supreme Court of Victoria, as these courts are not in the same hierarchy and authority. The decisions of high-level foreign courts, particularly the higher courts of the United Kingdom, set convincing precedents in Australia. For example, Kansas State courts of appeals will follow their precedent, the Precedent of the Kansas Supreme Court and the Precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kansas is not required to follow the precedents of other states` courts of appeals, California says.

However, when Kansas is faced with a single case, it may refer to the California precedent or another state that has an established decision as a guide to establish its precedent. Originalists differ in that they bend to precedents. During his confirmation hearings, Justice Clarence Thomas answered a question from Senator Strom Thurmond and relativized his desire to change precedents in this way: according to the literal rule, the judge should do what the current law says, rather than trying to do what he thinks it means. The judge should use the ordinary simple and everyday meaning of words, even if it leads to an unfair or undesirable result. A good example of problems with this method is R v Maginnis (1987)[44], in which several judges found several different meanings of the word Supply in individual opinions. Another example is Fisher v. Bell, where it was found that a merchant who placed an illegal item in a window with a price tag did not make an offer to sell because the precise meaning of “offer for sale” in contract law was merely an invitation to treatment. As a result of this case, Parliament amended the statute in question in order to put an end to this divergence. A persuasive precedent (also a persuasive authority) is a precedent or other legal letter that is not a binding precedent, but is useful or relevant and can guide the judge in deciding an ongoing case. Compelling precedents include cases decided by lower, peer or superior courts in other geographic jurisdictions, cases handled in other parallel systems (e.g., Military Courts, Administrative Courts, Indigenous/Tribal Courts, State Courts against Federal Courts in the United States), statements in dictations, treaties, or academic legal reviews, and in certain circumstances exceptional, cases of other nations, treaties, organs of global justice, etc. The doctrine of case law also influences the way court decisions are structured. In general, decisions of common law courts provide a sufficient decision ratio to guide future courts.

The ratio is used to justify a court decision based on previous case law and to facilitate the use of the decision as a precedent for future cases. On the other hand, court decisions in some civil courts (especially in France) are generally extremely short, as they mention only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and do not go into the details of the ratio decidendi. This is the result of Parliament`s positivist view that the court interprets only the legislature`s intent and therefore a detailed presentation is not necessary. For this reason, the ratio decidendi is carried out by jurists (teaching authors) who provide the explanations that, in common law jurisdictions, are provided by the judges themselves. Precedents are usually set by a series of decisions. Sometimes a single decision can set a precedent. For example, a single legal interpretation by the highest court of a state is generally considered to be part of the law originally. In fact, all courts are required to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the country. As a result, decisions made by the highest court become a binding precedent or a mandatory decile look for the lower courts of the system. When the Supreme Court sets a precedent set by lower courts in the legal hierarchy, the new decision becomes a rigid decision for similar hearings.

If a case decided by a Kansas court that has followed a certain precedent for decades is taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and then overturned by that court, the repeal of the Supreme Court replaces the previous precedent, and Kansas courts should adapt to the new rule as a precedent. Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will respect precedents in their decisions. Stare decisis means in Latin “to stand by decisive things”. Some instances of non-compliance with precedents are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare show of unity in a Supreme Court opinion on legal activism, Justice Stevens wrote that a district court “practiced a type of indefensible legal activism” when it “refused to follow a `review precedent` set by the Supreme Court.