Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence is the result of a set of judicial decisions of the same matter in a certain sense. Such decisions are rendered by the courts, notably the Superior Courts.
It is not uncommon for us to use the term "jurisprudence" in petitions, articles, or even our opinions regarding any particular Court decision. But after all, is everything jurisprudence? What is the distinction between a summary and a precedent statement?
This text is precise to clarify these and other issues that arise between students and legal professionals.
What is Jurisprudence?
The term jurisprudence can understand as an application of the law by the courts. It is the result of applying the law to the specific case that, after judgment, appears in the legal world to be used as a source of direction. It is, in the end, a series of decisions handed down by the courts on a given topic.
In the last decade, were made several legislative changes to ensure greater strength to the jurisprudence, with emphasis on the Civil Procedure Code of 2015. These changes demonstrate an approximation of the national legal system, with civil law concepts, to a model that strengthens precedents, common law characteristics. All this to ensure greater legal certainty for the judges.
There is often confusion between the meaning of some terms that, in practice, are related. They are precedent, summary, and jurisprudence.
In general, and not wanting to exhaust the subject, these concepts are of fundamental importance to understand how to mention the so-called jurisprudence in our petitions. Thus, I highlight below the definitions and differences between them.
Difference Between Summary And Jurisprudence
The summaries are nothing more than the consolidation of jurisprudence. Thus, after a particular court has formed a majority understanding on a specific topic, there is a duty to consolidate it so that people can understand it more clearly.
They can have a binding character, imposing normative force on the Judiciary and public administration organs at the federal, state, and municipal levels.
The summary statement is the expression of the court's orientation on a topic. The objective is to disseminate jurisprudence consolidation and standardize and unify the procedural acts practiced by all judges.
Difference Between Precedent And Jurisprudence
In term, precedent can be understood as the judicial decision rendered in a given situation that serves as a basis for other cases. That is a judgment that can be used as a basis for another last review. Thus, jurisprudence can understand as a set of precedents.
The Jurisprudence of High Courts
The main objective of the higher courts, without any hesitation, is to promote legal certainty.
The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution and the last resort of the national legal system. He is in charge of analyzing whether the matter in question is following the Magna Carta. The Superior Court is responsible for pacifying the constitutional jurisprudence.
In the current scenario, the Superior Courts judge thousands of cases per year, in numbers far beyond what they should be. Thus, standardization of the decisions of the so-called Courts of Justice (high courts) becomes increasingly important.
The second-degree courts' jurisprudence makes processes more efficient, promoting stability, trust, consistency, and procedural savings, among other objectives.
Importance of Jurisprudence for Advocacy
As stated above, it is an exciting practice to seek court decisions to demonstrate that the jurisprudential guidance is in line with the thesis put forward by the lawyer.
Thus, jurisprudence becomes of fundamental importance for advocacy. After all, it informs the magistrate the line that the courts have been deciding to prove that the client's right accompanies the Judiciary's jurisprudence. Also, of course, to contribute to a well-prepared, didactic, clear, and instructed petition.
Thus, it should be part of the law practice to research the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice, mainly because these courts define the position of the state and regional courts. Again, as stated, they have the function of pacifying the understanding of the other courts.
Binding Precedent and Jurisprudence From Higher Courts
Jurisprudence is the set of decisions issued by a particular court. There is a specific difference between the decisions handed down by the Superior Courts and the Courts of Justice, including concerning the binding precedents.
Conclusion
What is concluded with this article is that a uniform jurisprudence is fundamental to bring a new system to the lawyer and the citizen, through the precedent system, with speed and effectiveness.
For the lawyer, mainly, understanding the dynamics of the higher courts' decisions is of unique relevance, as it allows to know the position of the Courts of the country and brings legal security in the elaboration of their petitions.
One last tip is to collect the jurisprudence that applies to the case under analysis more critically than using applications or ready-made surveys. Not infrequently, many lawyers make the petition less didactic by inserting excess jurisprudence that does not even fit the specific case.
