The legal system in many common law countries use the doctrine of legal precedent to determine the outcome of cases. This doctrine allows for consistency and predictability in decisions made by the courts, as it establishes a hierarchy of authority and guides judges in their decision-making process.

Legal precedent refers to the legal principle that a previous court decision should be followed by future courts in similar cases. This means that decisions made by higher courts are binding on lower courts and must be followed unless there is a compelling reason to deviate from them. By doing so, courts ensure that similar cases are treated similarly, promoting fairness and consistency in the administration of justice.

A prime example of how courts use legal precedent is seen in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine. This decision served as precedent for over half a century until it was ultimately overturned by the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education had a significant impact on the civil rights movement and marked a turning point in the fight against racial discrimination.

Another example is the use of precedent in contract law cases. In the famous case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. in 1893, the court held that the company’s promise to pay a reward to anyone who used their product and still caught the flu was binding. This case established the principle of unilateral contracts and served as a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Furthermore, the principle of stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand”, plays a crucial role in the use of precedent. This doctrine requires courts to adhere to past decisions made by higher courts in similar cases, unless there is a compelling reason to depart from them. As seen in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, where the principle of Miranda rights was established to protect suspects from self-incrimination, the Supreme Court’s decision has been used as a precedent in countless cases involving the rights of criminal suspects.

However, courts are not bound by past decisions in all circumstances. In certain situations, such as when a prior ruling is found to be in conflict with a constitutional provision or a higher court’s decision, courts may depart from precedent and make a new decision. This allows for the evolution of the law and ensures that outdated or unjust decisions are not perpetuated.

In conclusion, the use of legal precedent is essential in the judicial system as it promotes consistency, fairness, and predictability in decision-making. Judges must carefully consider and apply past decisions in similar cases, taking into account changes in society, technology, and the values of the community. While precedent is not a rigid rule and can be overruled in exceptional circumstances, it remains a crucial aspect of the legal system and continues to shape the development of the law.