Which principle ensures that a court's decision sets a standard for future cases?

Which principle ensures that a court's decision sets a standard for future cases?

• A. Judicial activism
• B. Stare decisis
• C. Judicial restraint
• D. Legislative intent

Answer: (B)

The principle that ensures a court's decision sets a standard for future cases is known as stare decisis. This Latin term translates to "to stand by things decided." It requires courts to follow the precedents established in previous decisions when they are faced with similar facts or legal issues. This practice promotes consistency and predictability in the law, allowing individuals and entities to understand the legal framework that governs their actions. Stare decisis is foundational to the common law system, as it helps to anchor legal interpretation and application across different cases and jurisdictions. When courts adhere to precedents, they contribute to the stability of the legal system, enabling it to evolve gradually while maintaining a connection to established legal principles. The other principles mentioned do not serve this function. Judicial activism generally refers to a judicial philosophy that advocates for the courts to take an active role in addressing social issues and often involves a willingness to overturn precedents. Judicial restraint, on the contrary, emphasizes limitations on judicial intervention, advocating that courts should defer to the decisions made by legislative bodies unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles. Legislative intent involves understanding the meaning or purpose behind a legislative statute and does not pertain to the continuity of case law like stare decisis does.

The principle that ensures a court's decision sets a standard for future cases is known as stare decisis. This Latin term translates to "to stand by things decided." It requires courts to follow the precedents established in previous decisions when they are faced with similar facts or legal issues. This practice promotes consistency and predictability in the law, allowing individuals and entities to understand the legal framework that governs their actions.

Stare decisis is foundational to the common law system, as it helps to anchor legal interpretation and application across different cases and jurisdictions. When courts adhere to precedents, they contribute to the stability of the legal system, enabling it to evolve gradually while maintaining a connection to established legal principles.

The other principles mentioned do not serve this function. Judicial activism generally refers to a judicial philosophy that advocates for the courts to take an active role in addressing social issues and often involves a willingness to overturn precedents. Judicial restraint, on the contrary, emphasizes limitations on judicial intervention, advocating that courts should defer to the decisions made by legislative bodies unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles. Legislative intent involves understanding the meaning or purpose behind a legislative statute and does not pertain to the continuity of case law like stare decisis does.