Horizontal Precedent (1031 words)
Introduction
Common law systems are predicated on prior judicial decisions. This is an efficient way
to guarantee that the legislation is uniform and unambiguous. What courts have done in
the past is the foundation for common law systems. It's a formal process through which
judges reach decisions on cases that are related to those they have already decided.
Horizontal precedent is the process through which judges consider the judgments of
other courts with an equivalent or similar degree of authority. Vertical precedent refers
to the process through which higher courts impose their authority on lower courts. The
objective of this essay is to demonstrate the significance of horizontal precedent in
terms of how judges reach judgments, with a particular emphasis on how horizontal
precedent influences the outcome of legal proceedings, secures the administration of
justice, and promotes consistency. By examining significant instances and the
references to those cases, we shall examine the actual influence of horizontal precedent
in this essay.
Nature and Functions
Horizontal precedent is the concept of decisions made in the same area by courts with
the same amount of power. Horizontal precedent doesn't have to lead to a legally
binding like vertical precedent does. But it can still be useful and change how later cases
are decided. Setting a horizontal standard is mostly done to make sure that the outcomes
of court cases are always the same. Judges help make the legal system safe and easy to
understand by taking into account and following the decisions of other courts. Because
of this, most people have more faith in the legal system, and the idea that the law treats
everyone the same grows.
By using horizontal precedent, judges can look at many legal decisions that have
already been made, which speeds up the process of making decisions. By looking at
why and how cases were decided in the past, judges can make each case take less time
and work. Because of this, the legal system as a whole works better. "Horizontal
precedent," which is based on the idea of "stare decisis," makes the law easier to
understand and more reliable. Judges often look at the decisions of other judges in the
past to help them come up with legal ideas and set legal standards. For instance, the
famous case Plessy v. Ferguson set the standard for the "separate but equal" idea, which
was used in other cases until Brown v. Board of Education finally overturned it.
Using legal ideas can be made easy or harder by horizontal precedent. In the case of
Donoghue v Stevenson, the House of Lords made the "neighbor principle," which
increased the duty of care that one person has to another. Since then, this ruling has
come up in several cases of negligence, which has led to a wider range of responsibility
under tort law. The idea of horizontal precedent makes it possible for the law to change
to keep up with new ideas and social norms. Courts can rethink or change decisions
from the past so that they make sense from a current point of view. For example,
Lawrence v. Texas threw out Bowers v. Hardwick because it stated that laws that
made it illegal for wanting same-sex sexual behavior were not in line with the
Constitution. People's ideas about freedom and privacy are changing, and this case
shows that.
