Moreover, designation as a victim of a separate genocide and not as a victim of the Holocaust is a precedent. The binding precedent is based on the legal principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis means standing next to decisive things. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of the law. Existing binding precedents in previous cases are in principle applied in a similar way to new situations. One of the most important tasks of the previous one is to remove ambiguities in other legal texts such as constitutions, laws and regulations. The process involves first and foremost the consultation of the plain language of the text, as clarified by the legislative history, the subsequent precedent and the experience of different interpretations of similar texts. If the facts or problems of a case differ from those of a previous case, the previous case cannot set a precedent. In Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc., the Supreme Court reiterated that „[t]he reasons that are merely hidden on the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor decided, should not be considered as such. Previous. Accordingly, an earlier decision serves only as a precedent for questions which the General Court expressly took into account in its decision, having regard to the particular facts. There are disadvantages and advantages to binding precedents, as scientists and lawyers have noted.
It takes three elements for a precedent to work. First, the hierarchy of courts must be accepted and an effective system of legal relationships must be accepted. „A balance must be struck between, on the one hand, the requirement of legal certainty arising from the binding effect of previous decisions and the avoidance of undue restrictions on the proper development of the law (Lord Gardiner L.C.`s 1966 Statement of Practice (Judicial Jurisprudence)). In civil law and pluralistic systems, such as Scottish law, precedents are not binding, but case law is taken into account by the courts. In fact, Japanese society has set a terrible precedent. „While similar to AB 1460, the new UHC policy avoids setting a precedent for future curriculum decisions made by lawmakers,“ he wrote in an email. In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term „super precedent“ in an article they wrote about testing the theories of precedent by counting citations.  Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influence effect of a cited decision. The term „super precedent“ was then associated with another topic: the difficulty of reversing a decision.
 In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court`s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for arguing that if a party can take control of the Court on a matter of great national importance (as in Roe v. Wade), that party can protect its position from reversal „by some kind of super-stare decisis.“  The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually safe from a tipping point, whether they were made correctly or not, is the idea to which the term „super-stare decisis“ usually refers today. The Crown is demanding 12 to 15 months in prison for Michael Theriault in the attack on Dafonte Miller. Defense lawyer Michael Lacy calls this „completely detached from a precedent“ The doctrine of the binding precedent, or stare decisis, is fundamental to the English legal system. Some of the peculiarities of the English legal system include: when a court binds, this application of the doctrine of precedent is sometimes called horizontal stare decisis. New York State has a similar appeal structure in that it is divided into four appeals divisions overseen by the last New York Court of Appeals. The decisions of one appeal division are not binding on another and, in some cases, departments differ significantly in the interpretation of the law.
Is there a recent precedent for a reluctant but strong warrior in Republican politics? A precedent is an action or decision that serves as a guide for future situations in similar circumstances. Judge McHugh of the High Court of Australia regarding precedents noted in Perre v Apand: One of the most prominent critics of the development of case-by-case precedents that are both overly reactive and unfairly retroactive was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham.