The Law for Family Matters: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The common law
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
The common law of Canada is hundreds of years old and has its roots in England, in the ''curia regis'' established by King Henry II in 1178 and in the court of common pleas established by the Magna Carta in 1215, although really the oldest cases we are likely to refer to are from the 1800s. The common law is developed by the courts as they deal with each case, following a legal principle known by its Latin name, ''stare decisis''. Under this principle, a court dealing with a particular kind of problem is required, usually, to follow the decisions of previous courts that dealt with the same sort of problem in the same sort of circumstances. Court decisions are sometimes called "precedents" or "precedent decisions" because of the ''stare decisis'' principle. | The common law of Canada is hundreds of years old and has its roots in England, in the ''curia regis'' established by King Henry II in 1178 and in the court of common pleas established by the Magna Carta in 1215, although really the oldest cases we are likely to refer to are from the 1800s. The common law is developed by the courts as they deal with each case, following a legal principle known by its Latin name, ''stare decisis''. Under this principle, a court dealing with a particular kind of problem is required, usually, to follow the decisions of previous courts that dealt with the same sort of problem in the same sort of circumstances. Court decisions are sometimes called "precedents" or "precedent decisions" because of the ''stare decisis'' principle. | ||
Think of it like this. A long time ago, someone sued someone else for riding a horse onto his potato field without being invited. The court decided that you shouldn't be free to enter onto the property of another unless you are invited to do so, and found that the rider had trespassed. Someone else riding a different horse onto a different field would be found liable for trespass based on the principle established by the first court. The first case was a precedent for the court's decision in the second case. | Think of it like this. A long time ago, someone sued someone else for riding a horse onto his potato field without being invited. The court decided that you shouldn't be free to enter onto the property of another unless you are invited to do so, and found that the rider had ''trespassed''. Someone else riding a different horse onto a different field would be found liable for trespass based on the principle established by the first court. The first case was a precedent for the court's decision in the second case. | ||
===The common law and government=== | ===The common law and government=== | ||