binding precedent

简明释义

有约束力的判例

英英释义

例句

1.The court ruled that the case was subject to binding precedent, which means it must follow the previous decision.

法院裁定该案件受制于具有约束力的先例，这意味着它必须遵循之前的判决。

2.In this jurisdiction, lower courts are required to adhere to binding precedent established by higher courts.

在这个法域内，下级法院必须遵循由上级法院确立的具有约束力的先例。

3.Attorneys often cite binding precedent to strengthen their arguments in court.

律师们经常引用具有约束力的先例来加强他们在法庭上的论点。

4.The judge emphasized the importance of binding precedent in ensuring consistency in the law.

法官强调了具有约束力的先例在确保法律一致性中的重要性。

5.If a binding precedent exists, the court cannot deviate from it unless there is a compelling reason.

如果存在具有约束力的先例，法院不能偏离它，除非有充分的理由。

作文

In the realm of law, the concept of binding precedent plays a crucial role in ensuring consistency and predictability in legal decision-making. A binding precedent refers to a legal principle or rule established in a previous court case that must be followed by lower courts in future cases with similar facts. This doctrine is rooted in the principle of stare decisis, which means 'to stand by things decided.' By adhering to binding precedent, courts maintain a stable legal environment where individuals and entities can rely on established laws when making decisions. For instance, consider a scenario where a higher court rules that a specific action constitutes negligence. Lower courts are then obligated to follow this ruling in subsequent cases involving similar circumstances. This not only provides guidance for judges but also ensures that similar cases are treated alike, thereby promoting fairness in the judicial system. Without binding precedent, the law would become unpredictable, leading to potential injustices.However, it is important to note that binding precedent is not absolute. Higher courts have the authority to overturn their previous decisions if they believe that such a change is warranted due to evolving societal values or new evidence. For example, landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education demonstrate how the Supreme Court can change the course of legal precedent to reflect a more just society. In this case, the Court overturned the binding precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation under the 'separate but equal' doctrine. The dynamic nature of the law means that while binding precedent provides a framework for legal interpretation, it also allows for adaptation and reform. Legal scholars often debate the merits of strict adherence to binding precedent versus the need for judicial flexibility. Critics argue that an overly rigid application can stifle progress and prevent necessary changes in the law. Conversely, proponents assert that binding precedent is essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights.In practical terms, lawyers and judges must remain acutely aware of relevant binding precedents when preparing cases or delivering judgments. Legal research often involves examining past rulings to determine how they might influence current cases. This reliance on historical decisions underscores the importance of binding precedent in shaping legal arguments and outcomes.In conclusion, binding precedent serves as a cornerstone of the legal system, fostering consistency and reliability in judicial proceedings. While it is subject to change, its existence promotes a sense of order and trust in the law. As society evolves, so too will the interpretations and applications of binding precedent, reflecting the ongoing dialogue between tradition and progress in the pursuit of justice.

在法律领域，binding precedent（约束性先例）的概念在确保法律裁决的一致性和可预测性方面发挥着至关重要的作用。binding precedent是指在先前的法院案件中确立的法律原则或规则，必须由下级法院在未来类似事实的案件中遵循。这个原则源于“stare decisis”的原则，意为“遵循已经决定的事项”。通过遵循binding precedent，法院维持了一个稳定的法律环境，在这个环境中，个人和实体在做出决定时可以依赖既定的法律。例如，考虑一个场景，高级法院裁定某一特定行为构成过失。下级法院就有义务在后续涉及相似情况的案件中遵循这一裁决。这不仅为法官提供了指导，还确保类似案件得到同等对待，从而促进司法系统的公平。如果没有binding precedent，法律将变得不可预测，可能导致不公正的结果。然而，需要注意的是，binding precedent并不是绝对的。高级法院有权推翻其先前的裁决，如果他们认为这种改变是由于社会价值观的演变或新证据的出现而 warranted。例如，具有里程碑意义的案件如布朗诉教育委员会案（Brown v. Board of Education）展示了最高法院如何改变法律先例的方向，以反映一个更公正的社会。在这个案例中，法院推翻了普莱西诉弗格森案（Plessy v. Ferguson）所设定的binding precedent，该案支持在“分开但平等”的原则下进行种族隔离。法律的动态性质意味着，虽然binding precedent为法律解释提供了框架，但它也允许适应和改革。法律学者常常辩论严格遵循binding precedent与司法灵活性之间的优缺点。批评者认为，过于严格的适用可能抑制进步并阻止法律的必要变化。相反，支持者主张binding precedent对于维护法治和保护个人权利至关重要。在实际操作中，律师和法官必须在准备案件或作出判决时密切关注相关的binding precedents。法律研究通常涉及审查过去的裁决，以确定它们可能如何影响当前案件。这种对历史决定的依赖强调了binding precedent在塑造法律论据和结果中的重要性。总之，binding precedent作为法律体系的基石，促进了司法程序中的一致性和可靠性。虽然它是可以变化的，但它的存在促进了法律的秩序感和信任感。随着社会的发展，binding precedent的解释和应用也将不断演变，反映出在追求正义的过程中传统与进步之间的持续对话。