Discribe the doctrine of precedent...?

Question

Discribe the doctrine of precedent...?

Answer 1

In law, precedent is not a "doctrine," in the sense that it is a rule set down by some entity. The rule is more a sense of fairness that similar cases should be decided the same way, to avoid favoritism or frequent changes in legal outcomes of similar cases. It goes back to Roman law under the term "stare decisis," "it has been decided." It also lowers the case load a court has, since lawyers will advise their clients that the outcome is well-settled in their jurisdiction, unless a clear distinction can be made of the facts in the new case from the facts in previously decided cases. This applies only to "common law" legal systems, technically, but any legal system has to have some similar rule or it will dissolve into judicial anarchy, like our present US Supreme Court seems to be headed toward.

Answer 2

"Precedent" refers to the policy that courts should decide similar cases in a similar manner -- so that all people are equal in their treatment before the courts.  The first instance of a court's application of a particular rule to a particular situation or set of facts is said to set the precedent, and courts are inclined to, but not necessarily required to follow that precedent.  "Not necessarily" because . . .  there are TWO KINDS of precedent.  BINDING precedent is is set by a senior appellate court  to the court in which the issue arises. The lower court MUST follow the precedent or its holding may be reversed  by the same senior appellate court.  Non-binding or "persuasive" precedent is a ruling by a court in another jurisdiction or of the same level in the same jurisdiction. Courts will consider non-binding precedents and, especially if there are a number that all hold the same way, will generally follow them. But they may have their own reasons either factual or legal to "distinguish" their case from the preceding ones.