Common law, precedents, and stare decisis

Motions, trials, and appeals, as well as “Common law, precedents, and stare decisis,” are the focal points of this article. Vong’s (n.d.) article on conclusive precedent and English judicial law-making was selected as the source for the first idea. The second piece discussing the second idea is titled Court of Special Appeals: A Guide for Self-Representation and was published by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in 2016. The paper compares and contrasts the data in these papers.

According to Vong (n.d.), judges can use the common law as a source of legal guidance when making judgments in court. The English Law here is the common law that the tribunals in UK/England must follow in deciding cases.

Precedents are the past decisions of the court. They are principles or rules created by the Court on legal decisions. According to Vong (n.d), English precedents can possess the quality of a good source of law. They are used by judges as binding precedence in deciding following cases having similar facts and issues. As a common law legal system, the English law requires or allows judges to follow precedence when making judicial decisions. The binding precedence as defined by Vong (n.d) is a doctrine utilized by judges in court cases as well as in all legal issues. The judges look at the past similar cases and decisions made in guiding their decisions on same issues.

Stare decisis is the principle result where the common law requires courts to adhere to precedents of cases decided earlier as sources of law. Stare decisis is a rule that distinguishes the common law system from the civil law system. It is also called the binding precedence where the court holds the previous law to conclude a decision of a similar case. It is a rule only acceptable in the common law system.

The article also talks about appeals in the sense that the Court of Appeal does apply precedents when making court decisions. Vong (n.d) states that the Court of Appeal has the duty to implement decisions made in earlier cases in the court of House of Lords. It means that the decisions raised in the House of Lords bind the Court of Appeal in the future cases. This article does not talk about motion but gives valuable information regarding trials. According to Vong (n.d), decisions made in trial courts do not bind the courts or the judges themselves. However, decisions made by the high court and the Court of Appeal bind the other courts below the hierarchy.

Motions, trails, and appeals

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals (2016) defines motion as a procedure followed by judges in the courts so as to come to the final decision. There are different types of motions including a judgment motion notwithstanding the verdict, motion for a new trial, motion to dismiss, to decide, and motion for altering or amending the filed judgment.

A trial is an examination as well as the determination of the legal issues and facts in a case that concerns two parties in criminal or civil hearings. There are different types of trials including a new trial, jury or court or bench trial. A new trial is one set for the first time for hearing (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2016). All other courts can hear trials irrespective of the court of appeal that does not hear trials for the first time.

An appeal as defined as claims that are based on the trial court’s judgment where the jury did not appreciate the facts of a case to make a favorable decision to one party. An appeal is usually raised for making the final judgment by the Court of Appeal. An appeal in legal terms is termed as an appeal order and it of the file when all claims made by the parties to the case have been heard and decided in lower courts (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2016). A person can make a direct appeal or apply for leave to appeal when the conditions warrant so.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the two articles talk about different concepts that relate to making decisions on the court. They are different in that the first article talks about the concept of Common law, precedents, and stare decisis, while the second one talks about motions, trials, and appeals. The two articles are also similar because they provide information on how courts make decisions in trial courts and the Court of Appeal. Motion is not a common subject and is only discussed in the second article.

References

Maryland Court of Special Appeals. (2016). Court of Special Appeals: A Guide for Self-Representation. Retrieved from http://www.courts.state.md.us/cosappeals/pdfs/cosaguideselfrepresentation.pdf

Vong, D. (n.d). Binding precedent and English judicial law-making. Retrieved from https://www.law.kuleuven.be/jura/art/21n3/vong.pdf