There are two types of applications of this rule: Vertical stare decisis ensures that lower courts adhere to precedents set by higher courts in the hierarchy of the same judicial system. On the other hand, horizontal stare decisis ensures that a court follows its own precedents. When a court engages, this precedential application is sometimes referred to as horizontal stare decisis. New York State has a similar appellate structure, as it is divided into four appellate divisions overseen by the New York Court of Final Appeals. The decisions of one Appeal Division are not binding on another, and in some cases the divisions differ considerably in the interpretation of the law. Stare decisis should be applied both horizontally and vertically. That is, judicial precedents should apply to subsequent decisions made both by the same court that set the precedent and by all lower courts within that court`s jurisdiction. These precedents are not binding, which means that judges do not have to respect them and do not have complete confidence when deciding new cases. However, these precedents can influence decisions in future cases or serve as a guide to set new precedents. The rule of nonsense is the most flexible method of interpretation. It comes from the Heydon case (1584) and allows the court to apply what the law is supposed to fix, rather than what words actually say.
For example, in Corkery v. Carpenter (1950), a man was convicted of intoxicated liability for a car, even though he actually only had a bicycle. The last rule; However, is no longer used after the complete withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Known as the objective approach – it takes into account the intention of the European Court of Justice when the law was adopted. One example is Employment Div. v. Smith of 1990, when the U.S. Supreme Court set a precedent that “a state may deny unemployment benefits to a worker who has been fired for using illegal drugs, even if they were used in a religious ceremony.” Two Native American employees have applied for unemployment benefits in Oregon after they were fired for failing a test for peyote use at a religious ceremony. In common law countries (including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), it is used for judicial decisions of certain courts of appeal, trial courts, administrative tribunals and other bodies exercising judicial functions.   In the common law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents that indicate how and why previous cases have been decided. Unlike most civil law systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, to which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts.
 In England, for example, the High Court and the Court of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions, but the UK Supreme Court may depart from its previous decisions, although in practice this is rarely the case. Some cases of non-compliance are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare show of unity, Justice Stevens wrote in a Supreme Court opinion on legal activism that a district court “engages in a kind of untenable legal activism” when it “refused to follow a `precedent setting` by the Supreme Court. The rule that lower courts must stick to the review of precedents, sometimes referred to as “vertical precedent,” can be characterized as established law. It also seems to be accepted that ignoring vertical precedents is considered a form of legal activism. The “horizontal precedent,” the doctrine that requires a court to “follow its own previous decisions in similar cases,” is a more complicated and controversial issue. Kademists argue that it is sometimes appropriate to ignore horizontal precedents. Professor Gary Lawson, for example, has argued that stare decisis itself can be unconstitutional if it compels the court to conform to a misinterpretation of the Constitution. “If the Constitution says X and a previous court decision says Y, a court has not only the power but the duty to favor the Constitution.” In the same vein, Professors Ahkil Amar and Vikram Amar stated: “Our general view is that the articulated theory of stare decisis of the Rehnquist court tends to elevate legal doctrine above the Constitution itself.
It does so, they argue, “by demanding undue consideration for past decisions that may themselves have been erroneous interpretations of state law. For Lawson, Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar, rejecting erroneous horizontal precedents would not be legal activism; Rather, it would be appropriate constitutional decision-making. This doctrine also promotes uniformity of the law across jurisdictions. As mentioned earlier, U.S. Supreme Court precedents are followed by lower courts across the country, and the same rulings are expected regardless of location. The courts may take obiter dicta into account in the opinions of higher courts. The dicta of a higher court is not binding, but will often be convincing to the lower courts. The expression obiter dicta is usually translated as “other things said”, but due to the large number of judges and individual concurring opinions, it is often difficult to distinguish it from the ratio decidendi (justification of the decision).
For these reasons, obiter dicta can often be considered by a court. A litigant may also consider obiter dicta if a court has already pointed out that a particular legal argument is weak and may even justify sanctions if repeated. Courts may consider decisions of other courts that have equivalent authority in the legal system. For example, a county appeals court may review a decision of another county`s appellate court. Stare decisis, Latin for sticking to things decided,1FootnoteThe full Latin expression is stare decisis et non quieta movere – hold on to the matter and do not disturb the peace. See James C. Rehnquist, Note, The Power That Shall Be Vested in a Precedent: Stare Decisis, The Constitution, and the Supreme Court, 66 B.U. L. Rev. 345, 347 (1986).
is a legal doctrine according to which a court follows the principles, rules or standards of its previous decisions (or decisions of higher courts) when deciding a case with arguably similar facts.2FootnoteStare Decisis, Black`s Law Dictionary 1626 (10. 2014) (definition of stare decisis as a precedential doctrine that a court must follow previous judicial decisions when the same points recur in a dispute); Id., p. 1366 (Precedent defined as a decided case serving as a basis for the determination of subsequent cases involving similar facts or issues). This essay does not examine the Supreme Court`s dependence on state or foreign court precedents. Nor does it examine, as the Court held, whether a particular sentence of an opinion constitutes a binding obligation necessary for the purposes of stare decisis or, on the contrary, a non-binding obiter dictum.