Judicial practice – Case law
Judicial practice is a set of past legal decisions written by courts and similarly used by courts to resolve cases in which the law has been analyzed using these circumstances to resolve inaccuracies in the resolution of existing cases. These past decisions are “case law” or precedent. The opposite decision – the Latin phrase meaning “let a decision be made” – is the principle by which judges make such past decisions. These court interpretations differ from legal law, codes issued by the legislature, and are determined by the executive on the basis of regulatory legislation. In some jurisdictions, case law may be applied to a case in point; for example, criminal procedure or family law.
In general law countries (including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), the term case law is synonymous with common law. It is used for court decisions selected courts of appeal, courts of first instance, agency courts and other bodies performing judicial functions.
Criminal cases
In the General Law tradition, courts decide cases by interpreting and applying the statutes applicable to the court, how and why the precedents were written in advance. Unlike many civil law systems, which apply the doctrine of common law systems to the opposite decision, many courts are bound by their previous decisions in similar cases. Conversely, all lower courts’ decisions must be consistent with previous decisions of the higher courts. [3] In England, for example, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are each related to their previous decisions, but since 1966 the British Supreme Court may deviate from its previous decisions, although in practice it is rare. An important example of when the court overturned its precedent was R v Jogee; The British High Court ruled that they and other courts in England and Wales had misapplied the law for nearly 30 years.
In general, the higher courts do not have direct control over the lower courts of record, they cannot appeal on their own initiative (sua sponte) to overturn the decisions of the lower courts at any time. Typically, the burden of appealing a judgment (including a clear violation of established judicial law) to the higher courts rests with the bailiffs. If the judge acts against the precedent and the case is not so, the appeal is considered stable.
The lower court cannot rule against a mandatory precedent, even if it deems it unfair; he can only hope that the Supreme Court or the legislature will reform this rule. If the court finds that changes or trends in legal considerations are useless to the precedent and wants to avoid it and help the development of the law, it does not fit the precedent of the precedent or it must be so that some material differences between the facts of the case on; some jurisdictions allow a judge to recommend an appeal. If this decision becomes an appeal, the appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the judgment and the appellate case, presumably overturning the previous jurisprudence by setting a new precedent for higher authority. This can happen more than once as the work continues its work by applying in series. Lord Denning, the first Supreme Court judge, later provided a well-known example of this evolutionary process in the development of the Court of Appeals concept of the High Trees work from estoppel: High Trees House Ltd against Central London Property Trust Ltd [1947] K.B. 130.
How litigation is conducted
This section may contain rewritten Wikipedia compliance quality standards. You can help. The talk page can contain suggestions. (December 2016)
Different roles of judicial practice in civil and general law traditions cause differences in court decision-making. General courts usually provide detailed explanations of the legal basis on which their decisions are based, often quoting laws and previous relevant decisions, and often interpret broad legal principles. The required analysis (called the declining ratio), then forms a precedent that is mandatory for other courts; Additional analyzes that are not strictly necessary to determine the current situation are called obiter dictation.