In the United States, stare decisis can interact with federal and state judicial systems in counterintuitive ways. In matters of federal law, a state court is not bound by an interpretation of federal law at the county or county level, but by an interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States. In an interpretation of state law, whether common law or law, federal courts are bound by the interpretation of a state court of last resort and must generally defer to the precedent of intermediate state courts. [49] Once a case has been decided, the same plaintiff cannot sue the same defendant again for a claim arising from the same facts. The law requires plaintiffs to ask all questions on the table in a single case and not divide the case. For example, in a car accident, the plaintiff cannot sue first for property damage and then for assault in a separate case. This is called res judicata or claim preclusion (“res judicata” is the traditional name that dates back centuries; the name was changed to “claim preclusion” in the United States at the end of the 20th century). The exclusion of claims applies regardless of whether the plaintiff wins or loses the previous case, even if the last case raises a different legal theory, even the second claim is unknown at the time of the first case. The exceptions are extremely limited, for example, if the two actions for damages must necessarily be brought in different courts (for example, one action may be brought exclusively at the federal level and the other exclusively at the state level).
The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court that adheres to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh District Court of Appeals were to comply with the decision in an earlier case of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, this would be a horizontal stare decisis. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when applying the precedents of a higher court. For example, if the Seventh District Court of Appeals were to comply with an earlier decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be a vertical stare decisis decisis. Or, further, if the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were to uphold an earlier Second Circuit decision, it would be a vertical stare decisis. On many issues, reasonable people may disagree. If two of these people are judges, the tension between two precedents can be resolved as follows. However, the practice statement was rarely used by the House of Lords, usually only as a last resort. Until 2005, the House of Lords rejected its previous decisions only 20 times.
[42] They were reluctant to use it for fear of introducing uncertainty into the law. In particular, the practice statement indicated that the Lords would be particularly reluctant to reject each other in criminal cases, as this law was important. The first criminal case to be overturned by the practice notice was Anderton v. Ryan (1985), which was lifted two decades after R. v. Shivpuri`s (1986) statement of practice. Remarkably, the repealed precedent was only created a year earlier, but it was criticized by several academic jurists. As a result, Lord Bridge stated that he was “not discouraged by the consideration that Anderton`s decision against Ryan was so new. The practice statement is an effective task of our claim to infallibility. If a serious error in a decision of this House has distorted the law, the sooner it is corrected, the better. [43] Nevertheless, in some cases, the House of Lords was reluctant to override it; In R. v.
Kansal (2002), the majority of members of the House of Representatives agreed that R. v. Lambert had been wrongly decided and agreed to depart from his earlier decision. Binding precedents are based on the legal principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis means sticking to things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of the law. Existing binding precedents of previous cases are generally applied by analogy to new situations. A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous court case that is binding or persuasive, without the need to go to court for a court or other court when deciding subsequent cases involving similar questions or facts. [1] [2] [3] Common law systems place great importance on deciding cases according to consistent rules of principle so that similar facts lead to similar and predictable results, and adherence to precedent is the mechanism by which this objective is achieved.