On many issues, reasonable people may disagree. If two of these people are judges, the tension between two precedents can be resolved as follows. A precedent can be used in a court decision when it usually coincides exactly with a case before the court. They also have the binding power to maintain the balance of fair and stable justice, because in this case the law has been solemnly declared and established. An argument often made against precedent is that it is undemocratic because it allows judges, who may or may not be elected, to legislate.  In law, an enforceable precedent (also called binding precedent or binding authority) is a precedent that all lower courts in common law legal systems must follow. In English law, it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords in 2009. In civil law and pluralistic systems, precedents are not binding, but case law is taken into account by the courts. One of the most prominent critics of setting precedents on a case-by-case basis as being both overly reactive and unfairly retroactive was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. He called the common law “dog right”: in a single case, once there has been a first appeal, the lower court and the Court of Appeal itself will not look at the same issue and will not revisit an issue that could have been challenged on the first appeal. The exceptions are limited to three “extraordinary circumstances”: (1) if substantially different evidence is presented in subsequent proceedings, (2) if the law changes after the first appeal, for example by a decision of a higher court, or (3) if a decision is manifestly erroneous and would result in manifest injustice. This principle is known as the “law of the case.” Aside from precedents, the actual weight given to a reported opinion may depend on the reputation of the court and judges in relation to the specific issue.
For example, in the United States, the Second Circuit (New York and neighboring states) is highly respected in commercial and securities law, the Seventh Circuit (in Chicago), particularly Judge Posner, is highly regarded in antitrust law, and the District of Columbia Circuit is highly regarded in administrative law. Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court (e.g. a 9th Circuit court) adopts the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions of courts at the same level (usually courts of appeal) are considered persuasive. In other words, they should be carefully examined by the various courts, but do not have to be followed. A judge`s usual tools include access to all previous cases where a precedent has been set and a good English dictionary. A precedent is not binding on a court if it finds that there was a lack of due diligence in the original “per incuriam”. For example, if a legislative provision or precedent had not been brought to the attention of the previous court prior to its decision, the precedent would not be binding. A common mistake made by people who use both a living trust and a will is to distinguish the beneficiary of the estate from the people who benefit from the trust.
The same problem arises in the case of significant specific gifts and the residual beneficiaries are different from the recipients of the specific donations. In such cases, it is those who pay the taxes, not those who receive the most assets, who may unfairly tax some beneficiaries the entire tax bill and, in the worst case, even bankrupt the estate. The goal should be for taxes to be paid by those who receive donations. Often, a provision is used to allocate taxes on taxable transfers to ensure that each recipient of a taxable gift pays their fair share. Additional language is sometimes used to distribute credits. By the end of the eighteenth century, the common law courts had taken over most of the activities of their non-royal competitors, although there was still internal competition between the various common law courts themselves. During the nineteenth century, legal reform movements in England and the United States put an end to this situation by merging the various common law courts into a unified judicial system with a formal hierarchical structure. This, coupled with the advent of reliable private stenographers, made it practical to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis and rapidly developed the practice of binding judges to the decisions of courts of superior or equal status in their jurisdiction.  A case decided by a panel of several judges could lead to a split decision. Although only the majority opinion is considered a precedent, a judge who is in a minority may always publish a dissenting opinion. Common patterns of dissent include: Generally, a legal precedent is said: after your death, the probate process begins.
An application is filed with the court to review the will, an executor or administrator is appointed, and the assets named in the will are divided among your heirs. Who has access to the will after your death depends on whether the will has already been filed for estate review: we always recommend that you seek advice from an experienced estate planning lawyer if you have questions about the estate planning process or how to write a will. A qualified probate lawyer will guide you to the right decisions for your family and everyone involved. The courts attempt to present the common law as a “homogeneous network” so that the principles of one area of law apply to other areas as well. However, this principle does not apply uniformly. Thus, a word may have different definitions in different areas of law or different rules apply, so a question has different answers in different legal contexts. Judges try to minimize these conflicts, but they occur from time to time and may persist for some time on the principle of “stare decisis.” Judges can refer to different types of powers of persuasion to make a decision in a case. Frequently cited non-binding sources include legal encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum and Halsbury`s Laws of England, or published works of the Law Commission or the American Law Institute. Some bodies are empowered by law to issue directives with powers of persuasion or similar legal effects, such as the Highway Code. The execution of a will involves many responsibilities and duties. Here are the basics for you to know what to expect.
There is no uniform, legally infallible will. State laws vary, as do the needs of people who make wills. The following example is intended to give you an idea of what a will might look like and why it contains particular language. For more articles, see the FindLaw Testamentary Creation section. A will and a last will and power of attorney are important elements of any estate plan. Together, these documents can provide a variety of protections as you plan for the future. Several rules can make a decision considered a narrow “precedent” to exclude the future legal positions of case-specific parties, even if a decision does not set a precedent compared to all other parties. By definition, a case of first impression cannot be decided by a precedent. Since there is no precedent for the court to follow, the court uses the plain language and legislative history of a statute that must be interpreted, the decisions of other jurisdictions, the persuasion and analogies of previous decisions of other courts (which may be superior, peers or lower courts in the hierarchy or other jurisdictions), commentaries and articles by jurists, and the logic and sense of justice inherent in the Court. Initially, English common law did not require or require the doctrine of stare decisis for a number of legal and technological reasons: a precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed statement of facts in a case or judicial decision, which is then considered the rule for deciding a subsequent case involving identical or similar essential facts and brought before the same or a lower court.
Court in the judicial hierarchy.  The British House of Lords, as the last court of appeal outside Scotland, before being replaced by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, was not strictly bound to always follow its own decisions until London Street Tramways v. London County Council  AC 375. After that case, after the Lords had made a decision on a point of law, the case was closed unless Parliament made a legislative amendment. This is the strictest form of the doctrine of stare decisis (a doctrine not previously applied in common law countries where there was a little more flexibility for a court of last resort to consider its own precedents).