Stare decisis

Definition

Stare decisis is a legal principle that means 'to stand by things decided.' It mandates that courts must follow the precedents established by previous rulings when making decisions in new cases. This principle promotes consistency and predictability in the law, ensuring that similar cases are treated alike, which is essential in maintaining the integrity of legal systems.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Stare decisis ensures that courts maintain a consistent approach to similar legal issues, which helps uphold the rule of law.
2. While stare decisis provides a strong guiding force, courts can overturn precedents if there is a compelling reason, such as changing social norms or legal principles.
3. The doctrine applies differently in various court systems; higher courts generally set binding precedents for lower courts, while lower court decisions can be influential but are not binding.
4. In common law systems, stare decisis plays a vital role in shaping the development of law and guides judges in their decision-making process.
5. Stare decisis contributes to legal stability and predictability, allowing individuals and businesses to plan their actions with a clearer understanding of how laws may be applied.

Review Questions

• How does the principle of stare decisis influence the relationship between different levels of courts?
  • Stare decisis creates a hierarchical structure in which higher courts set binding precedents that lower courts must follow. This ensures that legal interpretations remain consistent across different jurisdictions and levels within the court system. By adhering to established precedents, lower courts help maintain uniformity in the application of the law, promoting fairness and predictability in judicial outcomes.
• Evaluate how the concept of stare decisis can lead to both stability and potential challenges within common law systems.
  • Stare decisis fosters stability within common law systems by providing a framework for consistency in legal rulings, allowing individuals and businesses to operate with confidence in how laws will be applied. However, it can also pose challenges when outdated precedents hinder necessary legal reforms or do not reflect contemporary societal values. Courts may struggle between adhering to precedent and addressing changing norms, which can lead to calls for reevaluation of established rulings.
• Assess the implications of stare decisis on judicial activism versus judicial restraint within various legal contexts.
  • Stare decisis plays a critical role in shaping the debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Advocates of judicial activism may argue for overturning precedent to address injustices or adapt to modern society, while proponents of judicial restraint emphasize adherence to existing laws and precedents as a means to preserve stability. The tension between these approaches impacts how courts interpret laws and the extent to which they feel empowered to effect change within the legal system.

Related terms

Precedent:

A legal decision or form of case law that serves as an example or rule for future cases to follow.

Judicial Review:

The power of courts to assess whether a law or government action is in accordance with the constitution.

Common Law: A body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts, as opposed to statutes enacted by legislative bodies.