how does the doctrine of precedent work ??
485022
the precedent case is what the courts base there decisions on\n\ncases that are ground cases that form the cornerstone to situations
795889
It means that certain courts have jurisdiction over certain types of cases.  For example, if you sue somebody for a car wreck and you want $50,000, the Circuit Ct or District Ct (Depending on State it might be called something different) has original jurisdiction and the Civil Appeals Court would have appellate Jurisdiction.  That case could not have been brought in the Civil Appeals Court to begin with.  That is the easiest way to explain it, but it can be more complicated than that.
673612
Not a clue on the legal reasoning bit, I'm afraid. Stare decisis means 'stand by your decision' meaning that decisions of previous judges have to be followed if it is in a lower court (there are also some other exceptions.) The UK statutes have to 'match up' to EU legislation and the Human Rights Act. I think that it all links in with not going against the EU bit, but I'm not too sure, I'm afraid. Hope that helps you a bit! :)
689121
this sounds like a concept that is specific to UK law. there is a definition in the source below but you might need to use edit/find to find the specific reference
630635
Dear Friend,\n\nJudges generally have discretion to recuse themselves from hearing any case in which they have a personal interest.  For example, if a family member, or the judge's church, or the company she worked with for decades came before her, the judge can and should ask another judge to take the case.  Certainly if the judge herself is a litigant, she cannot hear her own case.\n\nGenerally speaking, trial courts do have to hear whatever are filed in front of them.  Which particular judge hears which case is for the judges to decide.  Mostly this is done through random assignment to keep things fair.  However, for example, senior federal trial judges have the ability to say they don't want to take a particular sort of case... for example, criminal cases.  And if a judge has too crowded a docket, she can work with the clerk to have certain cases reassigned.  \n\nIntermediate appeallate courts usually hear everything as well, although they can decide for themselves whether to do so in panels of just a few judges -- or en banc, which means a hearing before all the judges of a certain area.  \n\nIt's not quite true that state supreme courts and the USSC have absolute discretion which cases to hear.  For example, death penalty cases are often appealed as of right to state supreme courts.  And the USSC is the only place that certain disputes, like those between sovereign States, can be heard.  But generally speaking those judges do have a LOT more say over which cases they hear.\n\nHope that helps.\n\nYour Friend, \nFrancesois
814211
Case law is that part of law that depends upon precedents from decided cases
595393
In general there is pretty much free reign to the contingency fees contracts. The only exceptions that I can think of the top of my head are that in some states lawyers cannot work for contingent fees in family law and criminal cases. \n\nP.S.\nThere is no way in hell i am doing 50 state search on some legal issue unless i get paid. If you name ONE state that interests  you in particular i will see what i can do.
417983
That trial was ultimately heard before the Supreme Court. Their opinion is at the site below. The ruling goes over the District ruling in detail.\n\nEdit:\nDon't pay for that crap in the site above. It's just a poorly written essay about the cases, not the opinion itself, which is available freely below.
950495
One of the critical issues in law school is reading carefully. And professors rarely include facts unless they're relevant. So - you have to read the full hypothetical, not just the snippet you gave us.\nWhy?\n\nBefore you can answer this question properly, you have to know which state's law is controlling (or, if somehow, you're operating under federal law, which is unlikely), and which court you're in. Further, if you're citing in a memorandum of law, your list is different than if you're citing the "most controlling" - which is too imprecise for law school, or a courtroom.
687550
That's not how the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine works.  Sovereign Immunity is a defense against liability, but it does not bar the suit from being filed in court.  \n\nFurther, a agent of the state (such as a teacher) can be sued personally rather than in their official capacity.  If a suit is filed against John Smith as an individual, the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity does not apply.
407040
Was it already probated?  If so there'd be a copy at the court house.  If not it has to come either from his lawyer or another family member who has a copy.  Most locations a copy is good enough if it bears the signatures of the person and witnesses.  Some however don't allow copies to be used.  If you're arguing over the will it will be going to court anyway so why not ask the family member?  They'll be compeled by the court to produce it anyway regardless of it's contested or not.
959681
It is part of the job for which you hired the attorney who got you the judgment in the first place.\nHis job is not over until he collects the money for you. If he had a contingent fee, he doesn't even get paid until he collects the money.
8329
Stare Decisis  is a Latin legal term, used in common law to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law.\n\nThis doctrine is not held within most civil law jurisdictions as it is argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges' right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws. For more information, please refer to the source
881059
It really can't in a common law jurisdiction.\n\nThe concept of common law is that valid decisions/interpretations by courts are binding authority on lower courts. So, it can't be illegal for courts to do what they are designed to do.\n\nCivil law systems (such as France, or Lousisana) work differently, and there the court holdinds are not binding in the same way as under common law.
157460
The base is in Luxembourg so the case will take place in Luxembourg. So the court will not physically judge outside Luxembourg.\n\nThe juristiction of the court is within the EU. So the judged cases can be from outside Luxembourg.
221616
English law isn't repugnant, just unnecessary and generally inapplicable.  When the USA was a baby, much of the U.S. law was based on English law, and much Royal precedent was examined.  Now, there is little use for English precedent, as most modern law can be based on our own precedent.  \n\nIt also depends on what law you're referring to.  Much of the common law, criminal law, and property law is based heavily on old english law.  Constitutional law, however, would obviously not have an English basis.
203050
This is what happend in the United States when an activist Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a "Living Document".\n\nSeveral democrats have been recently quoted as having concerns about Judicial nominees because the courts can "make laws".\n\nThis is not true.  Judges "interpret" law.  \n\nLiberal activist judges "interpret" law like Clinton "interprets" fidelity and integrity.\n\nCongress "makes" law.  Citizens "make" case law.