Why is precedent important in law

The weight of reliance interests was a significant point of contention in Lawrence v. Texas , [42] where the Court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick [43] to hold that the Constitution protected the right to intimate homosexual conduct. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so.

Like the workability inquiry, the Court has not given the reliance inquiry any preassigned weight in a stare decisis analysis. Department of Revenue of Illinois , [49] a precedent prohibiting a state from imposing a sales tax collection duty on a mail-order reseller if the seller lacks a physical presence within the state. Legitimacy concerns form a fourth relevant consideration in a stare decisis analysis. The Court has stated that legitimacy concerns are especially pressing when the Court analyzes the precedential power of a landmark case on a publicly divisive issue.

Principles for overturning precedent have evolved significantly from the time of the early judiciary. Statistical studies reveal that the Court has grown increasingly comfortable with overturning its own precedents. John M. Walker, Jr. The assistance of Ariela C. Anhalt in the preparation of this commentary is gratefully acknowledged by the author. This Commentary is also available in Chinese at the above hyperlink. The information and views set out in this Commentary are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of the China Guiding Cases Project.

United States , U. Tennessee , U. Pennsylvania v. This article was updated on Nov. In First Amendment challenge to city billboard rules, justices will be sign language interpreters - SCOTUSblog In , the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Arizona town could not impose different restrictions on the Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 26 Like on Twitter 65 View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 80 Like on Twitter View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 16 Like on Twitter 34 View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 49 Like on Twitter View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 18 Like on Twitter 53 View on Twitter Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter 62 Like on Twitter View on Twitter This website may use cookies to improve your experience.

We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish. Accept Read More. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.

We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent.

You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Courts follow them because these judicial decisions are the principal and most authoritative evidence that can be given of the existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law.

As a matter of great convenience, it is necessary that a question once decided should be settled and should not be subject to re-argument in every case in which it arises. It will save the labor of the judges and the lawyers. Precedents bring certainty in the law. If the courts do not follow precedents and the judges start deciding and determining issues every time afresh without having regard to the previous decisions on the point, the law would become the most uncertain.

Precedents bring flexibility to law. Judges in giving their decisions are influenced by social, economic and many other values of their age. They mold and shape the law according to the changed conditions and thus bring flexibility to law.

Precedents are Judge made law. Therefore, they are more practical. They are based on cases. It is not like statue law which is based on a priori theory. The law develops through precedents according to actual cases. Precedents bring scientific development to law. Precedents guide judges and consequently, they are prevented from committing errors which they would have committed in the absence of precedents.

Following precedents, judges are prevented from any prejudice and partially because precedents are binding on them. By deciding cases on established principles, the confidence of the people on the judiciary is strengthened. As a matter of policy, decisions, once made on principal should not be departed from in ordinary course.

There is always a possibility of overlooking authorities. The vastly increasing number of cases has an overwhelming effect on the judge and the lawyer. It is very difficult to trace out all the relevant authorities on the very point.

Sometimes, the conflicting decisions of superior tribunal throw the judge of a lower court on the horns of a dilemma. A great demerit of the doctrine of precedent is that the development of the law depends on the incidents of litigation. Sometimes, the most important points may remain unadjudicated because nobody brought an action upon them.

A very grave demerit or rather an anomaly of the doctrine of precedent is that sometimes it is the extremely erroneous decision is established as law due to not being brought before a superior court.

Coke C. Wiilis v. Baddeley : there is no such thing as judge-made law. Rajeshwar Prasad v. Bentham and Austin : legislative power is not with Courts and they can not even claim it. Salmond : both at law and in equity, however the declaratory theory must be totally rejected. Pollock: Courts themselves, in the course of the reasons given for those decisions constantly and freely use language admitting that they do. Where a statute clearly laid down the law, the judge has to enforce it.

The judge is confined to the facts of the case while enunciating legal principles. Within those limits alone it can be said that judges make law. After this brief discussion about the nature, definitions and authority of precedents let us move on to look at the value of precedents in different countries in the world. In the United States, which uses a common law system in its state courts and to a lesser extent in its federal courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:.

In the United States Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases:. Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.

For example, in the years —, the U. Supreme Court reversed itself in about cases. The U. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:. When convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. In constitutional questions, where correction depends upon amendment, and not upon legislative action, this Court throughout its history has freely exercised its power to re-examine the basis of its constitutional decisions.

The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis is basic to the English legal system, and to the legal systems that derived from it such as those of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, Malaysia and South Africa. A precedent is a statement made of the law by a Judge in deciding a case.

The doctrine states that within the hierarchy of the English courts a decision by a superior court will be binding on inferior courts. This means that when judges try cases they must check to see if similar cases have been tried by a court previously. If there was a precedent set by an equal or superior court, then a judge should obey that precedent. If there is a precedent set by an inferior court, a judge does not have to follow it, but may consider it. The House of Lords now the Supreme Court however does not have to obey its own precedents.

Only the statements of law are binding. This is known as the reason for the decision or ratio decidendi. See Rondel v. Worsley [5]. Also, if a court finds a material difference between cases then it can choose not to be bound by the precedent. Until the California Supreme Court resolves the issue, medical care providers in the two different regions are facing different laws. This type of split also happens between federal courts of appeal, sometimes with three or four parts of the country under different interpretations of a given federal law.

The alternative to the common law system is called a civil law system. In a civil law country, the legislatures pass very specific statutes, and these are applied by the courts. Each judge who decides a case looks to the statute, rather than the previous cases, for guidance. In theory, in ambiguous cases each judge is free to reinterpret the statute as necessary to fit the facts of the specific case.

Although this interpretation need not draw on previous decisions by other judges, civil law judges do try to ensure some consistency in the application of the law by taking into consideration previous court decisions. Louisiana retains some of the civil law procedures that were in force before it joined the United States. Previous Next.