I would like to start by saying I am not in law school and have only just gone back to school after a long time. I fully except that I might just be incredibly ignorant of how case law a precedent is set.
back story we are reading a book (Drug Dealer MD by Anna Lembke, MD) in it she uses the case *Estate of Henry James v Hillhaven Corp* (1991) and *Bergman v Wing Chin, MD and Eden Medical Center* (1999) as the reasoning while DR had to always prescribed something for pain management. from what I found both those cases have to do with end of life care and when I brought this up in the class i was told that "you dont understand precedent" and shut down hard. I am not looking to fight with the teacher but a bunch of the data the books has been miss leading. I plan to wright my cause and effect paper on Dr not understanding legal precedent but after that conversation with the teach I'm afraid maybe I dont understand what it means. I am really hoping someone could explain how this is precedent.
Precedent comes from tort laws, from in-court rulings by judges (as opposed to constitutional law). Precedent deals with a new interpretation of an existing tort law. It most often benefits the defense whose job is to establish reasonable doubt, while proving guilt is the prosecution's burden. Many tort court cases rely on precedent from past judicial decisions.
