What is stare decisis? I know in general that stare decisis effectively means that once a court rules on a law that other courts can use that decision when considering their cases. But why is that the case, how is it applied, and why are court reluctant to go against the precedence set in another case?
The core principle of stare decisis is that the law should not depend on what judge you got; two cases with the same facts should have the same outcome. In the common-law tradition, there weren't really written statutes; there was only "what's been done in the past," and so the only reference you'd have to what the law should be in some situation is past court decisions. If judges didn't have some constraints to rule similarly to before, there really wouldn't be any legal standards (because there was no written law to go back to; in civil-law countries, there always has been a written law, so precedent isn't so important). Stare decisis doesn't actually directly stop a judge from entering a decision that goes against binding precedent. However, judges are expected to obey precedent, and for the most part do what they're supposed to do. If they don't, the case will likely be reversed on appeal. Binding precedent only applies within the area a court serves; a court doesn't have to listen to precedent from a different court that has nothing to do with the case. The rule is that precedent from any court up the appeals chain is binding; federal district courts are bound by their circuit court and SCOTUS, state courts are bound by higher state courts and SCOTUS (but not other federal courts, as the case can't be appealed to them). A court can sometimes overrule its own precedent, but the cases where it can do that are rare (and so applying a higher court's precedent can also be viewed as "if you appeal to them they'll say X, so we're saying X.")
The future prospects are negligible, and the present status of such influence is non-existent. In a few cases, you may find an appellate decision citing some statement from a reputable law review. Here is an article that addresses such influences on SCOTUS (which, the authors note, have decreased over time). However, you are describing a wingnut legal theory, and courts do not rely on wingnut legal theories, they rely on what the actual law is.
The power definitely exists, and it is also said by some (respectable persons) that they have a duty to do so. There are many schools of legal interpretation. One trend is to attempt to discern legislative intent, based on whatever facts there might be such as newspaper articles or legislative committee reports. A contrary trend is to look exclusively at the text enacted by the legislature – this school is known as the Textualist school, and is currently dominant in the US Supreme Court. There are also non-textualist &quot;progressive&quot; trends that seek justice according to some social principle, rather than the text of the law or the definitive intent of the original legislators, which may address the situation that you have in mind. In civil cases, statutory law tends to be rather unclear, allowing a judge to decide on the basis of their beliefs of what is fair, equitable or just. That is because in the common law, close to a millenium old, judgments were supposed to be &quot;just&quot;. In the US, much of the common law has been re-coded as statutory law, and in that case, the intent of the legislature is really to &quot;encode the sense of justice implicit in the common law&quot;. This does not mean that trial judges have unlimited power to set aside the words of existing laws. Their primary obligation is to apply the law literally, as interpreted by their superiors (appellate courts). When the higher courts are silent and when the legislature is not clear, the trial judge has some leeway to follow whichever jurisprudential philosophy they adhere to.
None of the above! What you describe almost never happens. That's not because statutes never contradict each other. Statutes contradict (or appear to contradict) each other all the time – lawyers take advantage of this, arguing the statute that seem to favor their client is the relevant one. What almost never happens is that a court finds that two statutes (or even two parts of the same statute!) really do contradict each other. Courts can do this because almost every statute can be interpreted in different ways. When statutes appear to conflict, courts interpret those conflicts away. The logic that courts use to justify interpreting statutes this way is simple. They start by assuming that it would be insane for a legislature to pass laws that conflict. Imagine what would happen in Massachusetts if the legislature said, &quot;In Massachusetts, divorce is legal and illegal.&quot; To prevent such chaos, courts presume that legislatures are not insane, so they &quot;presume&quot; the laws only appear to contradict each other because they are being misinterpreted. Court use this presumption to correct those misinterpretations by showing that, when interpreted correctly, the statutes are consistent, not contradictory. To do this, the courts make use of what are known as canons of statutory interpretation. As one law professor put it, &quot;Canons are simply interpretive guidelines which, by dint of judicial repetition, take on the appearance, if not the reality, of a legal rule.&quot; There are canons explaining how to deal with everything from the words in a list to conflicts between statutes. Some canons are so commonly used that they are known by their nicknames, such as the “canon against superfluity&quot; or the &quot;last-antecedent rule.&quot; (Many are in Latin: &quot;expressio unius,&quot; &quot;noscitur a sociis&quot; or &quot;ejusdem generis&quot;. As Amon and Trish point out in the comments to the OP, there are two canons that are often used when statutes appear to conflict: Generalia specialibus non derogant: If there is a conflict between a general law and specific rule, the specific rule prevails. Newer laws amend older laws. What if two laws really are contradictory? In that case, the court should refuse to enforce either law. If the court picked one of the laws, it would effectively by making law. Under our system of separated powers, legislatures, not courts, legislate. How to find out more about canons The canons are a hot topic in law right now, largely because of Justice Scalia's insistence on the primacy of the text. His last book, &quot;Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts,&quot; discusses the canons at length. (You can see a list of the canons he discusses here.) Unfortunately, reading a list of canons, or articles about them, without seeing how they are used, is about as helpful as reading the rules of baseball without ever watching a game. The best way to learn how canons are actually used is to read a law school casebook. For canons, the best choice is Williams Eskridge's &quot;Legislation&quot; casebook. It devotes an entire chapter to the canons, including many (edited) examples of real decisions using them. And, since the canons change only slowly, you don't need the latest edition -- earlier editions are available for almost nothing ($3.51) online!
The US Supreme Court only has jurisdiction in federal matters. So if someone is suing under federal law, or there is a constitutional question, the Supreme Court is the place to go for a definitive answer. However, states have their own laws. The Supreme Court cannot tell New York that it must apply the attractive nuisance doctrine, as it is neither a matter of federal law nor a constitutional matter. New York is free to make its own laws on the subject, and the New York courts are free to interpret those laws as they see fit. In fact, federal courts are required to defer to New York's interpretation if New York's laws apply to the case, even if the case is in federal court for some reason (like diversity of parties.) See the Erie doctrine (which, coincidentally, involves yet another case about railroad injuries.)
The concept of prima facie is common also in civil proceedings (and, impliedly, administrative ones). See the results from this query, most of which are civil cases. For instance, this memorandum opinion begins by acknowledging that the plaintiff-appellees "have met their burden of establishing a prima facie case for defamation". In theory, the purpose of prima facie elements is to establish "high-level" uniformity as to what items a plaintiff or prosecutor, as the case may be, will need to prove in order to prevail in a case. That uniformity is necessary for --and consistent with-- the so-called "equal protection of the laws". From a standpoint of equal protection, there is no reason why a case being criminal vs. civil should make a difference regarding the applicability of the concept of prima facie elements.
The appeals court has found that the county court judge made a decision that was consistent with the evidence that was presented at trial. As such, the decision is sound. It appears that the defendant tried to present additional/different evidence or different arguments about the law in the appeal than they did at trial - this is not permitted. As to responsibility, the defendant and their legal team were responsible for deciding how to run their case and what evidence to present and what arguments to run. What evidence to present and how to present it and what submissions to make on the law is a tactical decision for each party. You can get it wrong. That doesn't let you try again on appeal. If your barrister has been negligent, and that directly caused you to lose, you can sue your barrister. In terms of interpreting a particular paragraph of a judgement, the appeals court may or may not make comment on a particular paragraph but the reasons, while important, are not really subject to interpretation other than that. A judgement will give orders, these should be very precise and not open to interpretation - things like &quot;the defendant will pay X to the plaintiff&quot; or &quot;the case is dismissed&quot; etc.
In any court, there will be situations where a judge has discretion to make some decision. The judge might have to decide "did X meet the burden of proof", and due to the situation two reasonable and competent judges could come to different conclusions. You couldn't blame either for the decision, even though they would make opposite decisions. On the other hand, a judge might make gross mistakes. The judge might decide "X met the burden of proof" when this is clearly a mistake. That's what the appellate court is interested in. An appellate court checks whether the judge made mistakes that a judge shouldn't make. So in this situation, the appellate court doesn't decide whether X met the burden of proof. The appellate judge decides "did the trial judge make a decision that a trial judge shouldn't have made". An appellate judge might think to himself or herself: "well, I would have decided differently, but this trial judge’s decision was one that a reasonable judge could have made", and if that is what he or she thinks, the original decision will stay intact.