Question

question 7 of 10
how are precedents used in majority opinions and dissents?

a. to write a thorough summary of a case by delineating all the facts
and circumstances surrounding the case

b. to retry defendants of a case by looking for a different angle in
which to incriminate them

c. to support an argument by showing that because other courts
have made similar decisions, the decision in the current case must
be logical

d. to review the decisions of lower courts on the same case, and to
then either refute or support those previous decisions

Explanation:

• Option A: Summarizing facts isn't the role of precedents in opinions/dissents. Precedents are about legal reasoning, not just summarizing.
• Option B: Precedents aren't used to retry defendants or find new ways to incriminate; that's not their purpose in legal opinions.
• Option C: Precedents (stare decisis) are used to support arguments by showing that similar cases had certain decisions, so the current case's decision is logical. This matches how courts use prior cases to justify their reasoning.
• Option D: Precedents are from similar cases (not the same case's lower court decisions). Reviewing lower court decisions on the same case is appellate review, not precedent use.

Answer:

C. To support an argument by showing that because other courts have made similar decisions, the decision in the current case must be logical