Judge-Made Law: Case Law 
The term case law refers to legal rules announced in opinions written by appellate judges when deciding 
appellate cases before them. Judicial decisions reflect the court’s interpretation of constitutions, statutes, 
common law, or administrative regulations. When the court interprets a statute, the statute, as well as its 
interpretation, control how the law will be enforced and applied in the future. The same is true when a court 
interprets federal and state constitutions. When deciding cases and interpreting the law, judges are bound by 
precedent. 
Stare Decisis
tare Decisis  and Precedent:  Been There, Done (must do) That. 
The doctrine of stare decisis
stare decisis  comes from a Latin phrase that states, “to stand by the decisions and not 
disturb settled points”. It tells the court that if the decisions in the past have held that a particular rule 
governs a certain fact situation, that rule should govern all later cases presenting the same fact situation. 
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, past appellate court decisions form precedent, that judge must follow 
in similar subsequent cases. Stare decisis permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded 
in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contribute to the integrity of our 
constitutional system of government, both in appearance and fact.” 
5 Trial courts and appellate courts must 
follow the controlling case law that has already been announced in appellate court decisions from their 
own jurisdiction. Trial courts must follow precedent when they decide questions of law. [Questions of 
law include what a statute means, what the law states, how the constitution should be interpreted, whether 
a particular law even applies under the facts in the case before them. On the other hand, questions of 
fact are decided by jurors (or judges in bench trials) and include, for example, how fast was the defendant 
driving, what color hat the defendant was wearing, or whether the gun went off accidentally.] One way 
courts get around precedent is to distinguish the facts in the case before them as much different than the 
facts in the earlier case.  For example, if the court may decide that the fact that the defendant was running 
away from the scene, in this case, is so different from the earlier case in which the defendant was merely 
walking away from the scene that there is no precedent it must follow. 
The advantages of stare decisis include efficiency, equality, predictability, the wisdom of past experience, 
and the image of limited authority. 
6 Efficiency occurs because each trial judge and the appellate judge does 
not have to work out a solution to every legal question. Equality results when one rule of law is applied 
to all persons in the same setting. “Identical cases brought before different judges should, to the extent 
humanly possible, produce identical results. … Stare decisis assists in providing uniform standards of law for 
similar cases decided in the same state. It provides a common grounding used by all judges throughout the 
jurisdiction.” 
7 Stare decisis provides stability in allowing individuals to count on the rules of law that have 
been applied in the past. Kerper’s example is a police officer’s reliance on past decisions to help determine 
the legality of a pending arrest. “Without regard to past decisions, the conduct of a wide variety of activities 
5. Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) 
6. Kerper, H. B. (1979). Introduction to the criminal justice system (2nd ed., pp. 47-49). West Publishing Company. 
7. Kerper, H. B. (1979). Introduction to the criminal justice system (2nd ed., pp. 49). West Publishing Company. 
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
105