Заң жүйесіндегі маңызды сот шешімдері

None

Landmark court decisions, in present day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a leading decision when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved. In 1914, Canadian jurist Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy said "a 'leading case' [is] one that settles the law upon some important point". A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by:
Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions), such as the Oakes test (in Canadian law) or the Bolam test (in English law). Sometimes, with regard to a particular provision of a written constitution, only one court decision has been made. By necessity, until further rulings are made, this ruling is the leading case. For example, in Canada, "[t]he leading case on voting rights and electoral boundary readjustment is Carter. In fact, Carter is the only case of disputed electoral boundaries to have reached the Supreme Court." The degree to which this kind of leading case can be said to have "settled" the law is less than in situations where many rulings have reaffirmed the same principle.

Decisions in leading cases in Australia have usually been made by the High Court of Australia, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. (Engineers' Case) (1920): Rejected the doctrines of implied intergovernmental immunities and reserved State powers and determined that each head of federal power should be interpreted simply on the words of the grant. Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921): dealt with what is a matter for the court and what the court can hear. In 1948, the High Court of Australia found that the Chifley government's legislation to nationalise Australia's private banks was unconstitutional. In 1951, the High Court of Australia found that Robert Menzies' attempts to ban the Communist Party of Australia were unconstitutional. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case), the High Court held that the Commonwealth was able to invoke its external affairs power to give effect to Australia's obligations under international law, including to prevent the construction of the Franklin Dam in a World Heritage Zone. In Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No.2) invalidated the declaration of terra nullius. Dietrich v The Queen, it was found that Australians accused of serious offences have a limited right to legal representation in order to guarantee a fair trial. In Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (The Malaysian Solution Case) the High Court held that refugees could not be deported to countries that did not meet certain human rights protection standards. In Commonwealth v the ACT (Same Sex Marriage Case) the High Court held that only the Commonwealth had the necessary legislative head of power to reform marriage laws to encompass same sex marriage. In Williams v Commonwealth and Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) (School Chaplains Case) the High Court held that the Commonwealth did not have the necessary constitutional head of legislative power to fund the National School Chaplaincy Programme. In Re Canavan (The Citizenship Seven Case), the High Court's earlier ruling in Sykes v Cleary was clarified and it was found that a dual citizen, irrespective of whether they knew about their citizenship status, will be disqualified from sitting in Parliament unless they are irremediably prevented by foreign law from renouncing their foreign citizenship as a result of the operation of s 44(i) of the Australian Constitution. 15 members of the 45th Parliament were either ruled ineligible to serve, or resigned on the basis of holding foreign citizenship.

The criminal case against the operator of the Italian fake review business PromoSalento in 2018 has been described as a "landmark ruling".

Decisions in leading cases in New Zealand were made by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand before the establishment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. In 1976, the Wellington Supreme Court in Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others held that Prime Minister Robert Muldoon had purported to suspend laws in a manner contrary to the Bill of Rights 1689. In 1987, the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General recognised the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Make It 16 Incorporated v Attorney General that restricting 16 and 17 year olds from voting was unjustified age discrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Courts of Appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.