Stare Decisis

Stare Decisis acts as a legal doctrine that allows a court to base its ultimate verdict on precedents set in comparable situations. A precedent is a previous decision or ruling in a judicial matter. In other words, it guides the court of law on proceeding with a matter resembling a past case.

The doctrine serves as the cornerstone of the rule of law. It ensures stability, integrity, and predictability in the legal system. Judgment in a unique case can set a precedent. Likewise, a new ruling in a current case can overrule any precedent established in a similar situation. Judges can rely on this principle to reach a verdict in matters with similar circumstances or facts.

• Stare Decisis meaning describes a legal notion that allows a court to base its final decision on past rulings or precedents in cases involving identical facts or circumstances.
• The precedent serves as a reference for judges deciding the current matter and enables the court to ensure the stability of law and fairness of decisions.
• Stare decisis prevents a lower court from making erroneous judgments, thus improving the efficiency of legal and judicial systems.
• A court can overturn a precedent if it finds it wrong, inappropriate, or encouraging injustice of any kind.

Stare Decisis is a legal term that refers to the practice of following precedents. It means that a court decision made in the past will necessitate that every subsequent case with a comparable scenario is dealt with in the same way. In Latin, the phrase means "to stand by what is already decided."

Precedents act as a guiding light for the judges hearing the current case. By following previous judgments, the court of law can assure stability and applicability of the law and fairness in its decisions. The principle binds subordinate courts to follow the verdicts made by superior courts to resolve a similar issue.

Its history dates back to the late 12th century when Henry II, King of England, established a system of circuit courts with one central appellate court. In that system, the appellate court adjudicated matters often brought before the subordinate court. In this manner, they established precedents for the later cases to follow.

Stare Decisis doctrine finds significant relevance in the common law of the United Kingdom and the United States. Here, judges must follow prior rulings when deciding similar cases in similar jurisdictions. The doctrine is a tenet in the American legal system and practically applies to every judicial system across the country.

The precedents assist the court of law in making better decisions in commercial and business matters. It also necessitates businesses to stay informed about the law and plan their activities accordingly.

• Courts must follow cases previously ruled by themselves or superior courts within the same judicial system.
• Every state does not need to follow a precedent established by subordinate or appellate courts.
• If the Supreme Court of the nation has made decisions in the past, all states courts falling under the national jurisdiction would be liable to follow the precedents.
• State court rulings, including those by Supreme Courts, in a legal matter, will only serve as a precedent for subordinate courts in the same jurisdiction or state.
• It is acceptable for a court to overturn its prior ruling in a similar case based on a new set of convincing facts.
• Making decisions based on precedents in cases with similar facts will result in similar and predictable conclusions.
• Subordinate court precedents tend to be less conclusive and persuasive than superior court decisions.
• The Supreme Court can overturn lower court precedents, thus setting a new precedent for future similar cases.

Let us consider the following Stare Decisis example to understand the principle:

Michael had his car in the garage for repair. Meanwhile, he had a meeting to attend at a venue at a significant distance from his place. So, he asks his neighbor Ralph for his car for a day. Ralph agrees, and Michael borrows his vehicle for the day. While returning from the meeting, Michael meets with an accident, and the car undergoes severe damage.

Ralph asks for compensation, but Michael disagrees. As a result, they both end up taking the matter to the court of law. After the hearing, the court ruled that Michael should pay the compensation and, in return, could use Ralph's car when needed.

This ruling sets a precedent, and subordinate courts will handle similar cases in the future based on this judgment.

Stare Decisis implies a legal principle that persuades subordinate courts to render decisions based on previous judgments (of superior courts) in matters involving identical situations or facts. As a result, past rulings become precedents for future verdicts.

It is, however, not an absolute principle, and there is no compulsion for lower courts to give the same verdict in any similar case. Instead, it is a doctrine that guides the legal system on what is and is not acceptable behavior. It makes the people in the society aware of how to act per social and legal norms.

The past verdicts also let businesses understand the law well and strategize accordingly. Thus, the principle allows people to act per legal requirements and prosper personally, professionally, and economically.

Courts do not need to follow precedents at all times. It has the power to overrule precedents if verdicts are:

• Wrongly decided
• An injustice
• Inappropriate as per the current situation
• Violating workability

One of the landmark cases where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a precedent is the Brown vs. Board of Education case of 1954.

The court of law here overruled the ruling in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case of 1896, which affirmed the validity of racially segregated public facilities under the "separate but equal" doctrine. Though this verdict acted as a precedent for similar cases for over 50 years, it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In the Brown vs. Board of Education case, a similar matter of racial segregation in public facilities, the court overturned the precedent. It ruled that establishing separate public schools for black and white students was unconstitutional and should not be allowed.

Even Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court recommends judges to overturn demonstrably erroneous rulings. While deciding a gun possession case, he concluded that the court should feel less obligated to enforce the precedent requiring the federal and state governments to try someone for the same crime separately.

This has been a guide to What is Stare Decisis and Its meaning. Here we discuss special considerations in stare decisis and how it works, along with examples. You may also have a look at the following articles to learn more –

• Natural Law
• Tax Court
• Caveat Emptor
• Compensatory Damages