Seeking: “Distinguishing a case” in Oxford Reference In Read v Lyons 1947[4] (where a munitions worker was injured in a factory explosion), the court distinguished Rylands v Fletcher 1868 because in this case, although the defendant factory considered “dangerous things in the country to be an unnatural user,” there was no escape. v. argue that the rule set out in a decision of an appellate court is not applicable to a particular case, although there is an obvious similarity (i.e., it is “differentiated”). This means that a precedent (called in English and Scots law an application to a case with similar facts) is dealt with, in which a decision can then be distinguished on that basis, or it can be cited with consent but found to be inapplicable for reasons consistent with the reasoning of the earlier decision. Balfour/Balfour (1919) and Merritt v. Merritt (1970) were cases challenging the enforceability of support agreements. In each case, a woman sued her husband for alleged breach of contract. The judge in Balfour concluded that the action could not be upheld without proof of intent to create legislation, so there was no legally binding contract. In contrast, in Merritt v. Merritt Balfour, the judge distinguished and concluded that the facts differed substantially in that (i) husband and wife were separated rather than “in friendship”; and (ii) the agreement was entered into in writing after its separation. When a new general category of separate cases is presented, such as: the distinction of all cases of freedom of contract in determining the judicially established tort of negligence, or if a case relates to an excessively narrow set of factual discrepancies (“turns to its own facts”) from commonly applicable precedents, there is a high risk that these decisions will be successfully overturned (by higher courts) For the following reasons: In law, distinguishing a case means that a court decides that the legal justification of a precedent is not fully applicable between the two cases because of substantially different facts.
As regards the distinction, two formal constraints must be evident in the judgment of the subsequent court: the relevant factors or considerations expressed in the proportion (legal reasoning) of the earlier case must be reused or indicated as the case may be, but for an additional circumstance not foreseen by the previous court, and the decision in the subsequent case must not expressly call into question the result achieved. in the previous one. (criticize). From: Differentiation of a Case in a Law Dictionary”. We noticed that you are from Canada. We`ve updated our Canadian dollar prices so you can shop easily. Use U.S. dollars instead. If an obiter dictum (a non-binding statement based on hypothetical facts) is subsequently followed and accepted, then it is said that the subsequent case “approves” that obiter, and the earlier case may be marked as “approved”, “followed” or “obiter followed”.
The decision of the judge or judicial chamber must be based on the available evidence and binding precedents covering the subject matter (they must be followed). Verb. [`dɪˈstɪŋgwɪʃ`] be a distinctive feature, attribute or characteristic; sometimes in a very positive sense.