What is the importance of precedent and stare decisis for the modern concept of law in society?

That's something I'm supposed to know for my law and society class...and I have no idea what kind of answer the prof is looking for. I know stare decisis is important for establishing consistency in decisions...but what beyond that? And why is consistency important? I just can't wrap my brain around this shit for some reason.

Forwards compatibility, so the law doesn't warp over time. It also helps to give a practical application of a law.

I don't know what stare decisis is, but precedent is important to keep the interpretation of the law consistent and less ambiguous. If you have real world examples to go by I'm guessing its easier.

Well, no real world examples, just a lot of theory and whatnot. My prof said to be detailed as possible in our take home midterm, to the point that it seems like there is too much detail, so I just did that and wrote whatever the hell could fit in there. But at first I couldn't get past a few sentences saying basically "create consistency, expectations, rational decision making." Sometimes I hate writing just to fill up space, but I think it'll turn out all right.

"It also helps to give a practical application of a law."

I have no idea what that sentence means. Sounds like something my prof would say as a hint that would just leave me completely dumbfounded. Care to explain?

"It also helps to give a practical application of a law."

I have no idea what that sentence means. Sounds like something my prof would say as a hint that would just leave me completely dumbfounded. Care to explain?

Statutory law is often not precise enough to be applied to the letter to everyday cases. I can't think of a way to explain what I mean in a concise definition, so I'm going to have to use a long winded example (in fact, the case I did my last essay on, Elitestone Ltd v. Morris [1997])

Basically:


Owners of land (Elitestone Ltd) divide land into 27 plots used for allotments
Several tenants put prefab Chalets on their allotments
Years later, owners want to get rid of all the allotments and develop the site
One tenant (Morris) claims that his Chalet is a legit dwelling, and the rent he has been paying for the allotment is rent for a dwelling, and his tenancy is therefore protected under the 1977 Rent Act (he can only be evicted if he stops paying rent or abuses the property)


The court has to decide if his Chalet is a legitimate dwelling & essential to the land use (fixture) or a shed for the purpose of enjoyment (fitting).

The law says that both the degree of annexation (degree of physical attachment) and the purpose of annexation (essential to land use or for the purpose of enjoyment) have to be considered in order to define it as either a fixture or fitting. The legal presumption is anything attached to the ground by bolts, screws or concrete is a fixture, and anything resting by it's own weight is a fitting. The prefab Chalet was not attached in anyway other than its own massive weight onto a concrete base. However, the weight and structure of the Chalet made it impossible to be moved from the property without damaging it (it would pretty much have to be demolished), and therefore it had to be considered a permanent structure which was part and parcel of the land (a fixture).

Nowhere in the statutory law is it written "any prefab Chalet, which although not held in place by bolts screws concrete, is considered immovable because it could not conceivably be removed without causing irreparable damage to it is considered a fixture". However the stare decisis (which would essentially say the above) would provide a practical application for the statutory laws regarding fixtures and fittings, and could be cited by other tenants with prefab Chalets.

Actually, after all that typing I think I've thought of a better way to put it: Basically statutory law is often not precise enough to be applied to the letter to everyday cases, and so it is the courts job to apply the written law to real world cases. The stare decisis is the judges rationale for how he has applied the law, and gives a practical yardstick for others to follow.

You're exactly right. The purpose of precedence and stare decisis is uniformity. It's practical in that every action has an appropriate reaction. There are no unknowns, no changed in rulings or sentencing based on a judges opinions and sensibilities; all cases are treated as those before them have been. It takes the guesswork out of law.

The "Stair decesion" misspelled in law books, regarded handicap access. In essence, ruled that ramps, elevators or other sutitable handicap access must be provided to the public. This set a precedent for further disability and equality rullings to follow. Good luck with your paper.