Effect of Precedent on Statutory Law: A Comprehensive Critique
Abstract
Abstract Views: 0
An important legal rule that ties common law systems to statutory law is the doctrine of precedent. This article examines the relationship between case law and statutory law, focusing on how statutes are applied, altered, and expanded through judicial decisions. With reference to the identified functions, advantages, and disadvantages of departing from precedent, this article critically discusses both positive and negative implications of judicial dependence on precedent in the statute interpretation process and in the direction of legal comprehensibility and continuity. Drawing on the analysis of key cases and academic points of view to the subject, this article offers a critique of the impact of precedent on statutory law as well as proposes guidelines to improve the relationship between the two sources of law.
Downloads
References
American Bar Association. (2024, August 16). The end of Chevron deference: What does it mean and what comes next? Business Law Today. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-august/end-chevron-deference-what-does-it-mean-what-comes-next/
Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Chevron deference (doctrine). Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)
Bamzai, A. (2017). The origins of judicial deference to executive interpretation. The Yale Law Journal, 126(4), 908–1241.
Blackstone, W. (1770). Commentaries on the laws of England. The Clarendon Press
Britannica. (2018, March 5). Obiter dictum: Legal definition, use, & examples. https://www.britannica.com/topic/obiter-dictum
Brudney, J. J. (2010). The story of Pepper v. Hart: Examining legislative history across the pond. Centre for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1601291
Centre for Constitutional Studies. (2019, July 4). Living tree doctrine. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/living-tree-doctrine/
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 82–1005 U.S. SC___1984.
Edmundson, W. A. (2018). Precedent and United States administrative law. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 27(1), 69–74.
Every CRS Report. (2014, September 24). Statutory interpretation: General principles and recent trends. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-589.html
Falco, M. P. (2016, November 7). The "purposive" approach to statutory interpretation: What does it mean? Torkin Manes. https://www.torkin.com/insights/publication/the-purposive-approach-to-statutory-interpretation-what-does-it-mean-
Ferraro, F. (2013). Adjudication and expectations: Bentham on the role of judges. Utilitas, 25(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820812000349.
French, R. (2008). Judicial activists – Mythical monsters? Southern Cross University Law Review, 12, 59–74.
Garg, P. (2015, May 7). Precedents as a source of law. Academike. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/precedents-as-a-source-of-law/
Glendon, M. A., Lewis, A. D. E., Kiralfy, A. R. (2025, September 13). Common law. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
Judiciary of England and Wales. (2019, September 11). R (Gina Miller) v. the prime minister, EWHC 2381 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Summary-Miller-v-The-Prime-Minister-1.pdf
Justia. (n.d.). Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/446/
Kramer, L. (2004, February 1). The people v. judicial activism. Boston Review. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/larry-kramer-we-people/
Lamond, G. (2016). Precedent and analogy in legal reasoning. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/legal-reas-prec/
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Judicial activism. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_activism
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Stare decisis. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
Matemba, R. (2010). Judicial activism: Usurpation of Parliament's and Executive's legislative functions, or a quest for justice and social transformation. School of Advanced Study. https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/2857/
Mitidiero, D. (2025). Ratio decidendi and obiter dictum: A curious case. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93152-9
Nayak, K. (2016). Judicial activism vs. judicial restraint: Judicial review. International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences, 4(2), 107–111.
Ontario Reports. (n.d.). Ayr farmers mutual insurance company v. wright. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://digital.ontarioreports.ca/ontarioreports/20170519?article_id=1254140&pg=NaN#pgNaN
Oyez. (n.d.). Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451
Perry, A. (2023). Precedent and fairness. Cambridge University Press.
Pin, A. (2022). The (In) evitability of Precedent. The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, 2(2), 246–262.
Roosevelt, K. (2010, April 30). Judicial activism: Definition, types, examples, & facts. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism
Spriggs, J. F., & Hansford, T. G. (2001). Explaining the overruling of US Supreme Court precedent. The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1091–1111.
Spriggs, J. F., & Hansford, T. G. (2002). The US Supreme Court's incorporation and interpretation of precedent. Law & Society Review, 36(1), 139–159.
Temme, L. (2023, March 17). Roe v. Wade case summary: What you need to know. FindLaw. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know
Tiersma, P. (2007). The textualization of precedent. Notre Dame Law Review, 82, 1187–1205.
United States Courts. (n.d.). History: Brown v. Board of education re-enactment. Retrieved July 22, 2025, from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/brown-v-board-education-re-enactment/history-brown-v-board-education-re-enactment
Volle, A. (2023, March). Separate but equal. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/separate-but-equal
Copyright (c) 2025 Syed Sikandar Shah Mohmand, Muhammad Muneeb Akbar, Rameesha Rashid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
LPR follow an open-access publishing policy and full text of all published articles is available free, immediately upon publication of an issue. The journal’s contents are published and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license. Thus, the work submitted to the journal implies that it is original, unpublished work of the authors (neither published previously nor accepted/under consideration for publication elsewhere). On acceptance of a manuscript for publication, a corresponding author on the behalf of all co-authors of the manuscript will sign and submit a completed the Copyright and Author Consent Form.
