Other names that refer to the legal directory are law blogging and online law journals. The online law journal has entries in a reverse chronological order. The websites are powerful information sources.
The strength of the software used enables the sites to keep legal information that can be publish. The software in the legal directory allows even first-time authors to submit their work. Players in the legal sector visit website and use the site effectively.
Online law journals are good for Practice groups, law firms and individual attorneys. They enhance the reliability and legal authority of these groups. It is a type of centralized approach that lets members of the legal fraternity to quickly and easily share knowledge. Having a law journal blog earns loyalty to law firms and lawyers. You would succeed as an attorney when you use legal directories as a marketing option.
Legal directories agree on defining legal precedent as sources of the law that involve past decisions by various juries developing law for use by other judges in future when making decisions on related or similar cases. The United Kingdom judicial system applies precedence based on stare decisis. The application within the English system developed from Latin including its translations.
It means standing by decisions already made in common corridors. It is the responsibility of stare decisis to offer certainty and fairness in law. This is in two segments: obiter dicta and ratio decidendi. The law based on by a judge to arrive at a particular judgment while concluding the case defines what ratio decidendi entails.
The reasons used in the delivery of a particular decision must fall in the speech provided at the end of the case. On the surface, ratio decidendi refers to a rule implied or expressed by a judge as an important factor in arriving at his or her conclusion.
On the other hand, obiter dictum constitutes issues said by the presiding judge according to the legal dictionary. They do not form part of another judge's in the future can follow. As an illustration, obiter dicta could be the decision of the judge if the facts turn out as different from the previous case.
It is for this reason that the old facts cannot bind the new judge while reaching his conclusion. In other occasions, cutting an exact difference between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi becomes difficult because they flow in a continuous manner.
The Broome v. Cassel case delivered Lord Hailsham from Marylebone put forth that, it is a necessity for every court in the lower tie to agree loyally with decisions made by courts above in the hierarchy. The Court of Appeal was included because it comes second in command.
You could also take a look at https://www.reference.com/government-politics/can-lawyer-name-2e299634b786185b if you like to know more.