What Is a Binding Decision in Law
Factors particularly relevant to this assessment include (a) processability, (b) trust, (c) task and (d) legitimacy. This list is not exhaustive; Other guiding principles include the fact that the Supreme Court has proposed that fewer precedents be linked to cases „decided at the narrowest margins, on temperament disagreements that call into question the fundamental basis of decisions“ , as well as the fact that the Court „presents its legislative decisions as having the right to receive the strongest form of reverence.“  (The latter principle stems from the Court`s conclusion that Congress can change legislative decisions by passing legislation, while Congress can only change constitutional decisions through the more complicated process of amending the Constitution.)  However, a review of the four factors above can help to understand some of the most important cases where the Supreme Court has decided to break with precedents. In the common law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting laws and applying precedents that record how and why previous cases were decided. Unlike most civil law systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, to which most courts in similar cases are bound by their own previous decisions and all lower courts should make decisions that are consistent with previous decisions of higher courts.  In England, for example, the High Court and the Court of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions, but the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom may depart from its previous decisions, although it rarely does so in practice. „Super stare decisis“ is a term used for important precedents that are resistant or immune to tipping, whether they have been correctly decided or not. It may be considered an extreme in a number of precedents, or alternatively, to express a belief or criticism of that belief, that certain decisions should not be overturned. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, all courts exercising subordinate jurisdiction are required to follow the decisions of courts exercising higher jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense. The decisions of this court are binding on all California state courts and must be followed by them. The decisions of each division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding on all judicial, district and higher courts in that state, and this is true regardless of whether or not the superior court acts as a trial or appellate court.
Courts exercising subordinate jurisdiction must accept the law declared law by the higher courts. It is not their job to try to overturn the decisions of a superior court.  The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis is fundamental to the English legal system. Among the peculiarities of the English legal system are: The most obvious disadvantage of stare decisis is the risk, sometimes confirmed, that ill-justified precedents may be part of the legal structure. However, there is a cure when this happens. The doctrine of stare decisis does not completely isolate precedents from examination. Congressional legislative action can overturn judicial decisions on legal matters, and constitutional amendments can overturn judicial decisions on constitutional issues. However, corrective measures are often not necessary, as the judiciary can overturn its own decisions if certain conditions are met. In the following, Part II examines how precedents may lose their binding effect through judicial action and examines the principles that guide the supreme court`s remedies.
An intergovernmental court of appeal is usually required to follow the decisions of the highest court in that state. The opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo provides a clear statement of the solid design of stare decisis. In that case, the Court upheld its 2016 decision in Whole Woman`s Health v. Hellerstedt, who struck down a similar Texas law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients to a nearby hospital. Roberts wrote: „The legal doctrine of stare decisis obliges us, without special circumstances, to treat cases in the same way. Roberts provided the fifth vote to uphold the 2016 decision, although he felt it had been badly decided.  Jurisprudence in common law jurisdictions is the set of court decisions or other decisions that can be cited as precedent.
In most countries, including most European countries, the term applies to any set of legal decisions based on previous decisions, e.B previous decisions of a government agency. The publication and indexing of decisions for use by lawyers, courts and the general public in the form of legal opinions is essential to the development of case law. Although all decisions are precedents (although at different levels of authority, as we have seen in this article), some become „important cases“ or „historical decisions“ that are particularly often cited. The court concluded that if a court gives multiple reasons for a particular outcome, any other reason „explicitly“ designated by the court as an „independent“ reason for the decision is not treated as a „mere saying.“  Stare decisis is generally not a doctrine used in civil law systems because it violates the legislative positivist principle that only Parliament can legislate. Instead, the civil law system relies on the doctrine of settled case-law, according to which, where a court has decided a coherent series of cases that result in the same participations with sound argumentation, previous decisions are very convincing, but do not control in legal matters. This doctrine is similar to stare decisis in that it states that a court`s decision must tolerate a consistent and predictable outcome. Theoretically, lower courts are generally not bound by the precedents of higher courts. In practice, the need for predictability means that lower courts generally bow to the precedent of higher courts. Consequently, the precedent is recognized by the courts of last instance, such as the French Court of Cassation and the Council of State, as de facto binding on the lower courts. The golden rule is used when the use of the literal rule would obviously produce an absurd result. There are two ways to apply the golden rule: a narrow method and a broad method.
In the narrow method, when there appear to be two contradictory meanings to the wording of a law or the wording is ambiguous, the less absurd is preferred. Under the broad method, the court modifies the literal meaning so as to avoid the absurd result.  An example of the latter approach is Adler v. George (1964). Under the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was a criminal offence to obstruct Her Majesty`s forces „in the vicinity“ of a prohibited place. Adler argued that he was not near such a place, but that he was actually there. The court decided not to take the text of the law literally to avoid an otherwise absurd outcome, and Adler was convicted.  A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case for which it is binding or persuasive, without a court or tribunal being brought to justice to rule on subsequent cases involving similar issues or facts.    Common law systems attach great importance to adjudicating cases according to uniform principles, so that similar facts lead to similar and predictable outcomes, and respect for precedents is the mechanism by which this objective is achieved. .