Statutory laws are those created by legislative bodies, such as Congress at both the federal and state levels. While this type of law strives to shape our society, providing rules and guidelines, it would be impossible for any legislative body to anticipate all situations and legal issues. The court system is then tasked with interpreting the law when it is unclear how it applies to any given situation, often rendering judgments based on the intent of lawmakers and the circumstances of the case at hand. Such decisions become a guide for future similar cases.

In order to preserve a uniform enforcement of the laws, the legal system adheres to thedoctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin for “stand by decided matters.” This means that a court will be bound to rule in accordance with a previously made ruling on the same type of case. Precedent, or case law, is binding on courts of the same level or lower and applies only if there is no legislative statute created, or higher court ruling, that overrules it.

Example of Case Law Application

Stacy, a tenant in a duplex owned by Martin, filed a civil lawsuit against her landlord, claiming he had not given her enough notice before raising her rent, citing a new state law that requires a minimum of 90 days’ notice. Martin argues that the new law applies only to landlords of large multi-tenant properties. When the state court hearing the case reviews the law, he finds that, while it mentions large multi-tenant properties in some context, it is actually quite vague about whether the 90-day provision applies to all landlords. The judge, based on the specific circumstances of Stacy’s case, decides that all landlords are held to the 90-day notice requirement, and rules in Stacy’s favor.

A year later, Frank and Adel have a similar problem. When they sue their landlord, the court must use the previous court’s decision in applying the law. This example of case law refers to two cases heard in the state court, at the same level. The ruling of the first court created case law that must be followed by other courts until or unless either new law is created, or a higher court rules differently.

Provide a detailed post that demonstrates clear, insightful critical thinking.

1) Summarize the case in one paragraph.

2) What supporting and opposing arguments were used?

3) What legal principles did the court rely on in making its decision?

4) What are the broader implications of the ruling in this case?

5) Did this case set any precedents for labor practices today? If so, what are they?