Google Scholar – an unlimited database of state and federal case legislation, which is searchable by keyword, phrase, or citations. Google Scholar also allows searchers to specify which level of court cases to search, from federal, to specific states.
A lower court might not rule against a binding precedent, although it feels that it's unjust; it may well only express the hope that a higher court or even the legislature will reform the rule in question. If the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and needs to evade it and help the regulation evolve, it may both hold that the precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that it should be distinguished by some material difference between the facts of your cases; some jurisdictions allow for the judge to recommend that an appeal be performed.
However, decisions rendered because of the Supreme Court of your United States are binding on all federal courts, and on state courts regarding issues with the Constitution and federal law.
We make no warranties or guarantees about the precision, completeness, or adequacy with the information contained on this site, or the information linked to about the state site. Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can create inaccuracies. You should read the full case before depending on it for legal research purposes.
The official court record is maintained because of the court of record. Copies of case file documents will not be obtainable over the search site and will need to become ordered from the court of record.
In order to preserve a uniform enforcement on the laws, the legal system adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis
PLR is usually a revolutionizing platform democratizing and making legal research easy and accessible in Pakistan :
Because of this, just citing the case is more more likely to annoy a judge than help the party’s case. Visualize it as calling a person to tell them you’ve found their missing phone, then telling them you live in these types of-and-these kinds of community, without actually offering them an address. Driving around the neighborhood wanting to find their phone is probably going being more frustrating than it’s well worth.
On June sixteen, 1999, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of your boy by a guardian ad litem, against DCFS, the social worker, and also the therapist. A similar lawsuit was also filed on behalf on the Roe’s victimized son by a different guardian advertisement litem. The defendants petitioned the trial court for any dismissal based on absolute immunity, because they were all acting in their Work with DCFS.
Article 199 from the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other enough remedy is provided by law." It truly is nicely-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust readily available remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction, regardless of whether Those people remedies suit them. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents unnecessary High Court litigation. Read more
182 . Const. P. 6025/2024 (D.B.) Dr. Pritam Das V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi So far as the stance of your respondents that pensionary benefits could be withheld on account of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, inside our view, section 20 of your Sindh Civil Servants Act of 1973 deals with the pension and gratuity that civil servants are entitled to. However, the act does provide for certain circumstances under which a civil servant's pension can be withheld or reduced. These contain if a civil servant is found guilty of misconduct or negligence during their service, their pension may very well be withheld or reduced. If a civil servant is convicted of a significant crime, their pension could be withheld or reduced. In some cases, a civil servant's pension may very well be withheld or reduced if he/she fails to comply with certain conditions established from the government.
The reason for this difference is that these civil legislation jurisdictions adhere to some tradition that the reader should be capable of deduce the logic from the decision as well as the statutes.[4]
Where there are several members of the court deciding a case, there could be a person or more judgments provided (or reported). Only the reason to the decision on the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may very well be cited as persuasive, website or their reasoning could possibly be adopted in an argument.
Criminal cases While in the common law tradition, courts decide the legislation applicable to your case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Not like most civil legislation systems, common regulation systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, by which most courts are bound by their possess previous decisions in similar cases. According to stare decisis, all decrease courts should make decisions regular with the previous decisions of higher courts.