What does the doctrine of stare decisis require lower courts to do?

What does the doctrine of stare decisis require lower courts to do?

• A. Ignore past decisions of higher courts.
• B. Follow the decisions of higher courts in similar cases.
• C. Create new laws based on cases.
• D. Challenge decisions made by higher courts.

Answer: (B)

The doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental principle in the legal system that establishes that lower courts are required to follow the legal precedents set by higher courts. This ensures consistency and predictability in the law, allowing individuals and entities to rely on established rulings in similar cases. By adhering to previous decisions, lower courts uphold the rule of law and maintain respect for judicial authority. This practice fosters stability within the legal system and encourages uniformity in legal interpretations across different cases within the same jurisdiction. The other options do not accurately reflect the purpose of the doctrine. Ignoring past decisions would undermine legal consistency, while creating new laws is typically within the purview of legislatures, not courts. Additionally, challenging established decisions would contradict the principle of adhering to precedent, which is central to stare decisis. Thus, following the decisions of higher courts in similar cases is the correct understanding of what stare decisis requires of lower courts.

The doctrine of stare decisis is a fundamental principle in the legal system that establishes that lower courts are required to follow the legal precedents set by higher courts. This ensures consistency and predictability in the law, allowing individuals and entities to rely on established rulings in similar cases. By adhering to previous decisions, lower courts uphold the rule of law and maintain respect for judicial authority. This practice fosters stability within the legal system and encourages uniformity in legal interpretations across different cases within the same jurisdiction.

The other options do not accurately reflect the purpose of the doctrine. Ignoring past decisions would undermine legal consistency, while creating new laws is typically within the purview of legislatures, not courts. Additionally, challenging established decisions would contradict the principle of adhering to precedent, which is central to stare decisis. Thus, following the decisions of higher courts in similar cases is the correct understanding of what stare decisis requires of lower courts.