precedent
पायंडा
definition
noun
there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
adjective
a precedent case
preceding in time, order, or importance.
translation of 'precedent'
मागील दाखला विशेषता न्यायालयीन निर्णय ज्याचा उपयोग नंतरच्या खटल्याचा निर्णय देताना होऊ शकतो)
example
I just want to go back to some of the 'precedent' issues of the settlement process.
This would be an example of 'precedent' activism but not separation-of-powers activism.
People claimed that the 'precedent' set out by the sleeper hit in 1998 was finally superseded.
All that has happened is that there is a set of 'precedent' requirements of a procedural kind before a court case can be commenced.
Historical 'precedent' shows pubs have changed their names through the years, usually for good reasons.
We fear there may well be a 'precedent' set for the rest of her school life.
Once these spaces are let go to development there would be no stopping further development because there would be a 'precedent' set.
Furthermore, this is a case of general importance and it may well set a 'precedent' .
We all have to go through the same nonsense, which seems crazy considering the 'precedent' set at the first hearing.
It's a great adrenaline rush to set 'precedent' or prior learning on its ear.
So the planners want to look at what 'precedent' they are setting.
The court should never view a foreign legal decision as a 'precedent' in any way.
He said it was without 'precedent' and unfair - especially as the police had not been called in.
I want the kind of 'precedent' I have seen in Europe followed here.
The result is a game of spot the allusion, with the final mass exodus dictated more by Chekhovian 'precedent' than any kind of political logic.
The 'precedent' it set does not augur well for future similar elections.
His first and main ground is that the Inspector had no basis for his conclusion on the 'precedent' effect.
This is both illogical and a 'precedent' we should not allow to be set.
A lower court cannot set 'precedent' , and must follow any higher courts decision.
The public sentiment would have been the necessity for humanitarian considerations to overcome 'precedent' this once.
I shall add to the definition of humanly free agents, that they are agents whose choices do not have fully deterministic 'precedent' causes.
If this court hears the case, they say, any decision would set a 'precedent' and would have ramifications across the country.
I guess the point I want you to consider is what sort of 'precedent' we are establishing here, because it is important for the future.
I am going to break with the 'precedent' set by the previous speaker and actually talk about the bill before the House.
If 'precedent' holds, it won't be publishers of tax-help books alone who benefit.
However, based on 'precedent' the cards are stacked against them.
Critics say that the judges should have let the 1963 'precedent' stand, even if it was bad.
Is this a 'precedent' we wish to set for other great regional powers as well?
It is the sort of 'precedent' we are seeing in other legislation.
Once a power to detain is held to depend on 'precedent' fact, then of course anyone subjected to it can properly invoke habeas corpus.
Credits: Google Translate
