We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Understanding Tantum Habent De Lege, Quantum Habent De Justitia in Law
Definition & Meaning
The phrase "tantum habent de lege, quantum habent de justitia" is a Latin legal maxim that translates to "they have as much in law as they have in justice." This principle emphasizes that legal precedents are valued in the law only to the extent that they embody principles of justice. Courts rely on precedents to establish rules that guide future cases, but not all precedents are appropriate to follow. A precedent may be deemed wrongful if the decision was made incorrectly or if it exceeds the authority granted by statutes or the constitution.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
This maxim is relevant in various areas of law, including civil, criminal, and family law. It underscores the importance of justice in legal decisions and the use of precedents in court rulings. Legal professionals often reference this maxim to argue for or against the applicability of past decisions in current cases. Users can manage some legal matters themselves by utilizing ready-to-use templates from US Legal Forms, which are drafted by experienced attorneys.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
For instance, if a court ruled that a specific contract was unenforceable due to unfair terms, that decision could serve as a precedent in future cases involving similar contracts. However, if the ruling was based on a misinterpretation of the law, it would not be followed in subsequent cases (hypothetical example).
State-by-state differences
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
State
Application of Precedents
California
Precedents are binding unless overruled by a higher court.
New York
Precedents are persuasive but not always binding in lower courts.
Texas
Precedents from higher courts are binding on lower courts.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Difference
Binding precedent
A decision that must be followed by lower courts in the same jurisdiction.
It is mandatory, while the discussed maxim emphasizes justice over strict adherence.
Persuasive precedent
A decision that may influence a court but is not obligatory to follow.
This maxim supports the idea that only just precedents should be persuasive.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you find yourself in a situation where this legal principle applies, consider reviewing relevant case law to understand how precedents may influence your case. Utilizing US Legal Forms can provide you with templates to help manage your legal matters effectively. However, if your case is complex, seeking professional legal assistance is advisable.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.