A previous judgement cited by the court to decide on a similar set of facts:A.PrecedentB.CaseC.Obiter dictaD.Judicial dicta

In common law legal systems, a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding or provides an example for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts is called precedent.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse

Justice Jon Snow is a judge of the High Court of Australia. His Honour has heard both sides of the case before him and is about to make his decision. The lawyer for the plaintiff has cited a case from the Supreme Court of Victoria, with very similar facts to the present case, in which the plaintiff won the case.Which of the following statements about precedent is INCORRECT?Question 11Answera.The precedent cited by the plaintiff may have persuasive value, but does not have to be followed by Justice Snow.b.As the precedent cited by the plaintiff is materially similar to the case to be decided, Justice Snow is bound to decide the case in a manner which is consistent with the judgement of the Supreme Court of Victoria.c.As the Supreme Court of Victoria is below the High Court, Justice Snow is not bound to follow the decision.d.Once Justice Snow decides the case, this decision will become binding on all other courts in Australia.

The concept that courts will continue to rely on prior cases to ensure consistency in the law is called:Group of answer choicesvenue.original jurisprudence.lex talionis.stare decisis.

Far from being rigid and inflexible, the doctrine of precedent enables judges to develop legal principles and respond to broader historical and institutional developments in and outside the legal system…… Discuss this statement.

Which of the following is NOT included in the “facts” of the case?Multiple Choicethe events leading to a casewhere the case as already been heardthe parties to the casethe majority opinion