Help me with this question Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are oblig

Question

Help me with this question
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are obligated to follow the precedents established in their jurisdiction unless there is a compelling reason not to. Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to this common law principle, given that our government now regulates so many areas by statute? Help me with this question
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are obligated to follow the precedents established in their jurisdiction unless there is a compelling reason not to. Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to this common law principle, given that our government now regulates so many areas by statute? Help me with this question

Explanation / Answer

England and U.S. legal system were constructed on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jusisdiction.

The Doctrine of stare decisis has always a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.

There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.