In legal terms, what principle is Richard following when he makes rulings consistent with precedents in similar cases?

The principle Richard is following when making rulings consistent with precedents in similar cases is known as stare decisis. This doctrine is fundamental to the legal system, as it ensures that courts adhere to established precedents, thereby promoting stability and predictability in the law. When judges apply stare decisis, they look to prior decisions made in earlier cases to guide their rulings, fostering a sense of continuity in legal interpretation.

By relying on previous decisions, Richard is able to apply established legal principles to new cases, ensuring that similar situations yield similar outcomes. This practice not only upholds the rule of law but also allows for the gradual evolution of legal standards as society changes, while still providing a framework that individuals and businesses can rely upon when making legal decisions.

Other concepts like judicial review, which involves courts evaluating the constitutionality of legislative acts, and equitable maxims, which are guiding principles for fairness in courts of equity, do not directly relate to the consistency with which precedents are followed. Legal realism emphasizes the influence of social, economic, and contextual factors on the law, rather than strict adherence to past rulings. However, it is stare decisis that specifically highlights the importance of preserving and following legal precedents in judicial decisions.