The article quotes California state law that state superior courts are bound by state appellate courts regardless of where in California these courts reside, but it is not stated whether the same rule applies in the federal arena. I think you guys wanted to say "legislators". Most judges in other parts of the world are not elected by uneducated beer-drinking wife-beating voters.
A past ruling or judgment on any case is known as a precedent. Stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedent when overseeing an on-going case with similar circumstances. What makes a precedent? A unique case with hardly any past reference material may become a precedent when the judge makes a ruling on it.
Also, any precedent that has been overruled in a current case may be replaced by the new ruling used on the similar present case. Insider trading is basically the misuse of material non-public information for financial gain. The insider can trade the information for his personal portfolio, or sell the information to an outsider for a cost.
The precedent looked to by courts dealing with insider trading is the case of Dirks v.
In this case, the US Supreme Court held that an insider is guilty if he directly or indirectly received material benefits from disclosing the information to someone who acts on it. In addition, exploiting confidential information exists when the information is gifted to a relative or friend.
This decision became precedent and is upheld by courts dealing with financial crimes similar to this nature. In the ruling of Salman v. United States, stare decisis was used by the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this case.
Stare decisis, the confidential information given to Salman was considered a gift, and adhering to Dirks v. SEC which makes it clear that fiduciary duty is breached when a tipper gives confidential information as a gift, Salman was guilty of insider trading. Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their own previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system.
For example, the Kansas state appellate courts will follow their own precedent, the Kansas Supreme Court precedent, and the US Supreme Court precedent. Kansas is not obligated to follow precedent from the appellate courts of other states, say California. However, when faced with a unique case, Kansas may refer to the precedent of California or any other state that has an established ruling as a guide in setting its own precedent.
For example, inthe 2nd US Circuit Court of appeals in New York overturned the insider trading conviction of two hedge fund managers, Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, stating that an insider can only be convicted if there was a real personal benefit gotten from the misappropriated information.
The Appeals Court upheld the conviction ruling on Salam.
In effect, all courts are bound to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court as this represents the highest court in the country. Therefore, decisions made by the highest court become binding precedent or obligatory stare decisis for the lower courts in the system.
When the Supreme Court overturns a precedent made by courts below it in the legal hierarchy, the new ruling becomes stare decisis on similar court hearings. SEC, and the Appeal Court had, therefore,not adhered to the principle of stare decisis.Definition of stare decisis - the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent.
stare decisis: (stah-ree duh-sigh-sis) n. Latin for "to stand by a decision," the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent..
Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and.
Contents[show] Overview Stare decisis is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. In the United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to.
Stare decisis definition, the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decision are authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.
See more. Stare decisis definition, the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decision are authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.