Question Description
Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Law characteristically faces backward. Unlike most forms of policymaking, which are concerned with a proposed policy’s future consequences, legal decision-making is preoccupied with looking over its shoulder. Frequently in law, but less so elsewhere, it is not enough that a decision produces desirable results in the future; the decision must also follow from or at least be consistent with previous decisions on similar questions. By ordinarily requiring that legal decisions follow precedent, the law is committed to the view that it is often better for a decision to accord with precedent than to be right, and that it is frequently more important for a decision to be consistent with precedent than to have the best consequences.The obligation to follow precedent arises in the legal system in two different ways. One we can call vertical precedent. Lower courts are normally expected to obey the previous decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction, and this relationship of lower to higher in the “chain of command” is usefully understood as vertical. Federal district courts are obliged to follow the precedents of the courts of appeals of their circuit, and the courts of appeals are obliged to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court. The same holds true in state systems, which typically have a similar structure and impose equivalent obligations. Indeed, we refer to courts as higher and lower precisely because higher courts exercise authority over lower ones, an authority manifested principally in the obligation of lower courts to treat the decisions of higher courts as binding upon them.Courts are also, although less obviously and sometimes more controversially, expected to follow their own earlier decisions – horizontal precedent, because the obligation is between some court now and the same court in the past. The earlier decision is superior not because it comes from a higher court; rather, the earlier decision becomes superior just because it is earlier. This obligation of a court to follow its own previous decisions is typically known as stare decisis.Q. Which of the following would most weaken the author’s contention?a)The Supreme Court recently took a decision on a case based on a previous precedent.b)A Federal district court took a decision on a case ignoring all previous precedents.c)A court of appeals took a decision on a case based on a precedent of the Supreme Court.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.