When a judge follows past decisions, he is following which legal principle?

The principle that a judge follows when considering past decisions is known as stare decisis. This Latin term translates to "to stand by things decided." In the legal context, it refers to the doctrine that courts should follow established precedents when making rulings on similar cases. This practice encourages consistency and predictability in the law, as it helps ensure that similar cases are treated alike, providing stability to the legal system.

Judges rely on previous judgments to inform their decisions, allowing them to uphold the rule of law and reduce the arbitrary nature of judicial decision-making. By adhering to past rulings, judges also contribute to the overall development of legal principles over time, as established precedents can evolve but are not lightly overturned.

Other concepts mentioned, such as judicial activism, relate to a more flexible interpretation of laws and can involve judges taking an active role in policy-making, which is not the primary focus of stare decisis. Legislative intent refers to the purpose behind a law as determined by the lawmakers, while common law describes legal rules and principles developed through court decisions rather than through statutes. These concepts do not encapsulate the specific practice of following past decisions as directly as stare decisis does.