Stare Decisis Flashcards

Study Notes

Stare Decisis Overview

Stare decisis means "to stand by things decided," emphasizing the importance of precedent in legal decisions.
Precedent guides courts in following prior rulings to ensure consistency.

Binding Precedent

The concept of "ratio decidendi" refers to the binding rationale behind a decision, accessible through various means.
Precedent must demonstrate "natural similarity" in cases to be considered applicable, requiring uniformity in facts and outcomes.

Natural Similarity

Similar situations or facts may yield different legal interpretations; hence, mere similarity does not guarantee relevance.
Cases with significant contextual nuances, like industry or location, influence the comparability of precedents.

Facts and Outcomes

Merely combining facts and outcomes is insufficient; different reasoning approaches can yield various legal interpretations.
Outcomes in similar cases, such as AIB and Target, may conflict, highlighting the complexity of application.

Material Facts and Outcomes

Analyzing material facts has substantial implications for legal outcomes and distinctions made in precedent cases.
Questions arise about the relevance of professional roles, like being a solicitor, in shaping legal interpretations.

Rule in Precedent Case

A rule established in a precedent case acts similarly to ratio decidendi, providing a general principle derived from past decisions.
Commercial trusts may not entail the same strict liability standards as traditional trusts, pointing to varying legal responsibilities.

Types of Precedent

Vertical Precedent: Lower courts are required to follow decisions made by higher courts.
Horizontal Precedent: Courts respect their past decisions, which raises questions about the ability to overrule existing precedents.

Value of Precedent

Precedent ensures consistency and legal certainty but faces criticism regarding blind adherence.
Expertise of judges and coordination of rulings can promote efficiency in case resolution, though this might not be effectively realized in practice.
Fairness necessitates equitable treatment of similar cases while recognizing distinctions among different cases.

Stare Decisis According to Hart

Hart views stare decisis as judges applying established rules, equating it with clarity and consistency in the law.
Creation of new precedents signals judicial adaptation to changing contexts, fostering the development of legal principles.

Challenges with Precedent

While precedent promotes fairness and legal certainty, the ability to depart from established rulings poses ongoing debates.
Understanding when and how judges can diverge from precedent involves complex considerations of legal interpretation.

Hart's Perspective

Hart suggests that judges possess discretion to depart from precedent, a view that involves formulating new laws or exceptions.
The evaluative nature of judges' discretion calls into question Hart's theory regarding the adherence to established traditions.

Stare Decisis According to Dworkin

For Dworkin, the principle of integrity underscores judges’ consistency with statutory and judicial applications of the law.
Law must reflect justice, fairness, and procedural integrity, suggesting that overruling precedents is permissible when aligned with evolving norms.

Description

Test your understanding of the legal principle of stare decisis with these flashcards. Learn about the meaning of precedent, the binding aspects of it, and how to derive the 'ratio decidendi' from past cases. Perfect for law students or anyone interested in legal terminology.