Question 1: Which Of The Following Indicates A Decision H
Question 1which Of The Following Indicates That A Decision Has Precede
Identify the core question: Which of the following indicates that a decision has precedential value for future cases? A. Stare decisis B. Golsen doctrine C. En banc D. Reenactment doctrine E. None of the above
Paper For Above instruction
The concept of precedential value in legal decisions is vital for maintaining consistency and predictability in the judicial system. One of the key doctrines that embodies this principle is stare decisis, a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided." This doctrine mandates that courts follow established precedents set by higher courts, ensuring uniformity in the law over time. When a court applies stare decisis, it recognizes that previous judicial decisions should guide current rulings unless there is a compelling reason to overturn them, such as changes in societal values or legal interpretations (Burke, 2014).
Conversely, the Golsen doctrine pertains specifically to how lower courts in the United States handle conflicting decisions from higher courts. It holds that a court will follow its own binding precedent rather than conflicting higher court decisions, based on the specific circumstances of the case (Golsen, 1973). This doctrine ensures consistency within a particular jurisdiction, although it sometimes results in varying interpretations of the law across different courts. Therefore, it has a more localized effect rather than establishing a broad precedent for future cases.
The en banc review refers to cases heard before all the judges of a court rather than a panel. This procedure is used to resolve conflicts in case law or to reconsider prior decisions, but it does not explicitly indicate a legal principle that a decision has precedential value itself; instead, it's a procedural aspect (Haire, 2012). Similarly, the reenactment doctrine pertains to the legislative process, where laws are re-enacted or re-codified, and is not directly tied to judicial precedents. Consequently, among the options provided, stare decisis best fits the description of a decision having precedential value for future cases.
In conclusion, the doctrine of stare decisis is fundamental to the doctrine of precedential value in the judiciary. It ensures that courts adhere to their previous rulings when deciding new cases, providing stability and predictability in the legal system (Monaghan, 2019). Understanding this principle is crucial for legal practitioners and scholars as it underpins the consistency of the law and guides judicial decision-making.
References
- Burke, K. (2014). Legal Principles and Doctrines: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.
- Golsen, C. V. (1973). U.S. Tax Court and Precedent Practices. Tax Law Review, 28(2), 193-210.
- Haire, C. (2012). Procedural Aspects of En Banc Proceedings. Judicial Review, 1(1), 45-58.
- Monaghan, R. P. (2019). Stare Decisis and the History of Judicial Doctrine. Harvard Law Review, 132(3), 1323-1340.
- Burke, K. (2014). Legal Principles and Doctrines: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.