Misplaced Pages

#456543

62-582: The ruling made by the judge or panel of judges must be based on the evidence at hand and the standard binding authorities covering the subject-matter and areas of law cited in or plainly relevant to the dispute (they must be followed ). This means that a precedent will be dealt to (in English and Scottish law known instead as applied to ) a case with similar facts, in which a decision can then be distinguished based upon this, or it may be cited with approval but found to be inapplicable on bases reconcilable with

124-499: A common law court system has trial courts , intermediate appellate courts and a supreme court . Thus, the lower courts are bound to obey precedent established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent. The Supreme Court of California 's explanation of this principle is that [u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis , all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise,

186-609: A case is widely regarded as being "leading" is its inclusion of the ruling in one or more of the series of compilations prepared over the years by various authors. One of the earlier examples is Augustus Henry Frazer Lefroy's Leading Cases in Canadian Constitutional Law , published in 1914. More recently, Peter H. Russell and a changing list of collaborators have published a series of books, including: Decisions in leading cases in Canada have usually been made by

248-404: A determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was necessary to the disposition of the precedent case; (3)

310-548: A different three-judge panel. In federal systems the division between federal and state law may result in complex interactions. In the United States, state courts are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system. In practice, however, judges in one system will almost always choose to follow relevant case law in the other system to prevent divergent results and to minimize forum shopping . Precedent that must be applied or followed

372-434: A government agency. Essential to the development of case law is the publication and indexing of decisions for use by lawyers, courts, and the general public, in the form of law reports . A precedent is a historical setting example for the future (though at varying levels of authority as discussed throughout this article), some become "leading cases" or "landmark decisions" that are cited especially often. Generally speaking,

434-715: A higher court. In civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law , precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts. A court may consider the ruling of a higher court that is not binding. For example, a district court in the United States First Circuit could consider a ruling made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority. Courts may consider rulings made in other courts that are of equivalent authority in

496-426: A kind of super-stare decisis". The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually immune from being overturned, regardless of whether they were decided correctly in the first place, is the idea to which the term "super- stare decisis " now usually refers. The concept of super- stare decisis (or "super-precedent") was mentioned during the hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito before

558-408: A legal precedent may be: In contrast, civil law systems adhere to a legal positivism , where past decisions do not usually have the precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making; the judicial review practiced by constitutional courts can be regarded as a notable exception. Stare decisis ( / ˈ s t ɛər r i d ɪ ˈ s aɪ s ɪ s , ˈ s t ɑː r eɪ / )

620-701: A list of some leading cases: 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

682-557: A precedent is binding: In a conflict of laws situation, jus cogens norms erga omnes and principles of the common law such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , to a varying degree in different jurisdictions, are deemed overriding which means they are used to "read down" legislation, that is giving them a particular purposive interpretation , for example applying European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of courts ( case law ). "Super stare decisis "

SECTION 10

#1732775491457

744-436: A similar way, but are not obliged to do so and are required to consider the precedent in terms of principle. Their fellow judges' decisions may be persuasive but are not binding. Under the English legal system, judges are not necessarily entitled to make their own decisions about the development or interpretations of the law. They may be bound by a decision reached in a previous case. Two facts are crucial to determining whether

806-677: A sort of binding precedent when they answer legal questions that a court has not, either form of opinion may act as a source of law if they have a direct effect on the administration of government. The courts of England and Wales are free to consider decisions of other jurisdictions, and give them whatever persuasive weight the English court sees fit, even though these other decisions are not binding precedent. Jurisdictions that are closer to modern English common law are more likely to be given persuasive weight (for example Commonwealth states such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand). Persuasive weight might be given to other common law courts, such as from

868-457: Is a court ruling that serves as an authoritative guide for resolving future cases with similar facts or legal issues. As a key aspect of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided") , courts are generally expected to follow precedent in their decisions. When a prior court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, subsequent courts are encouraged to align their decisions with the earlier ruling to maintain consistency and predictability in

930-551: Is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere : "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed". In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. The principle can be divided into two components: The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent , reflects

992-415: Is a process that has its origins in the English common law. Most state attorney opinions address issues of government finance or the authority of political bodies within the state. Often, these opinions are the only available authority interpreting rarely‑litigated statutes and constitutional provisions. By and large, courts treat state attorney general opinions as persuasive authority. The opinions lack

1054-546: Is a term used for important precedent that is resistant or immune from being overturned, without regard to whether correctly decided in the first place. It may be viewed as one extreme in a range of precedential power, or alternatively, to express a belief, or a critique of that belief, that some decisions should not be overturned. In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent" in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations. Posner and Landes used this term to describe

1116-474: 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

1178-438: Is known as binding precedent (alternately metaphorically precedent , mandatory or binding authority , etc.). Under the doctrine of stare decisis , a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In state and federal courts in the United States of America, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under

1240-406: Is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in

1302-418: Is often hard to distinguish from the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision). For these reasons, the obiter dicta may often be taken into consideration by a court. A litigant may also consider obiter dicta if a court has previously signaled that a particular legal argument is weak and may even warrant sanctions if repeated. A case decided by a multijudge panel could result in a split decision. While only

SECTION 20

#1732775491457

1364-624: The American Law Institute . Some bodies are given statutory powers to issue guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the Highway Code . In federal or multijurisdictional law systems, conflicts may exist between the various lower appellate courts. Sometimes these differences may not be resolved and distinguishing how the law is applied in one district , province, division or appellate department may be necessary. Usually, only an appeal accepted by

1426-496: The High Court and the Court of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so. A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if the lower court feels that the precedent is wrong. Even if an intermediate judge issues a ruling inconsistent with existing or subsequent precedent, if

1488-583: The Supreme Court of Canada . Prior to the abolition of appeals of Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s, most landmark decisions were made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London . The Supreme Court of India , which is the highest judicial body in India, has decided many leading cases of Constitutional jurisprudence, establishing Constitution Benches for hearing the same. Given below are

1550-644: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom , which took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords in 2009. In civil law and pluralist systems, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts. Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis . Stare decisis means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedent from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy . One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows: Given

1612-502: The court of last resort will resolve such differences, and for many reasons, such appeals are often not granted. Any court may seek to distinguish its present case from that of a binding precedent, to reach a different conclusion. The validity of such a distinction may or may not be accepted on appeal. An appellate court may also propound an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case may distinguish

1674-511: The legal certainty resulting from the binding effect of previous decisions, and on the other side the avoidance of undue restriction on the proper development of the law." Judges are bound by the law of binding precedent in England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions. This is a distinctive feature of the English legal system. In other countries, particularly in mainland Europe, civil law means that judges take case law into account in

1736-539: The District of Columbia alone, and up to seven states. Each panel of judges on the court of appeals for a circuit is bound to obey the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedent of a United States court of appeals may be overruled only by the court en banc , that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the United States Supreme Court —not simply by

1798-671: The Privy Council in London . Decisions in leading cases in the United Kingdom have usually been made by the House of Lords , or more recently the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ; in Scotland by the Court of Session or High Court of Justiciary ; in England and Wales by the Court of Appeal or the High Court of Justice of England and Wales . Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from

1860-630: The Second Circuit (New York and surrounding states) is especially respected in commercial and securities law, the Seventh Circuit (in Chicago), especially Judge Posner, is highly regarded on antitrust, and the District of Columbia Circuit is highly regarded on administrative law. The doctrine of vertical precedent states that each court is bound by the decisions of higher courts in its jurisdictional area or tribunal hierarchy. Generally,

1922-638: The Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the committee chair, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times referring to Roe as a "super-precedent". He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept. Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority ) is precedent or other legal writing that

Distinguishing - Misplaced Pages Continue

1984-551: The Supreme Court says that the First Amendment applies in a specific way to suits for slander, then every court is bound by that precedent in its interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to suits for slander. If a lower court judge disagrees with a higher court precedent on what the First Amendment should mean, the lower court judge must rule according to the binding precedent. Until the higher court changes

2046-401: The U.S. legal system, courts are set up in a hierarchy. At the top of the federal or national system is the Supreme Court, and underneath are lower federal courts. The state court systems have hierarchical structures similar to that of the federal system. The U.S. Supreme Court has final authority on questions about the meaning of federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. For example, when

2108-479: The United States), statements made in dicta , treatises or academic law reviews , and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc. In a " case of first impression ", courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by

2170-504: The United States, most often where the American courts have been particularly innovative, e.g. in product liability and certain areas of contract law. Lists of landmark court decisions 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 "

2232-631: The Virgin Islands) is bound by rulings of the Third Circuit Court, but not by rulings in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington), since the Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction defined by geography. The Circuit Courts of Appeals can interpret the law how they want, so long as there is no binding Supreme Court precedent. One of

2294-437: The appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the precedent and the case under appeal, perhaps overruling the previous case law by setting a new precedent of higher authority. This may happen several times as the case works its way through successive appeals. Lord Denning , first of the High Court of Justice , later of the Court of Appeal , provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development of

2356-536: The bases respectively that: Balfour v Balfour (1919) and Merritt v Merritt (1970) were cases involving the enforceability of maintenance agreements. In each case a wife sued her husband, alleging breach of contract . The judge in Balfour held the claim could not be sustained without evidence of intention to create legal regulations, so there was no legally binding contract. By contrast, in Merritt v Merritt ,

2418-573: The broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions. In the common-law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedent, which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike most civil-law systems, common-law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis , by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. For example, in England and Wales,

2480-441: The case is not vacated on appeal the decision will stand. If the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and wishes to evade it and help the law evolve, the court may either hold that the precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that the precedent should be "distinguished" by some material difference between the facts of the cases. If that decision goes to appeal,

2542-404: The common reasons the Supreme Court grants certiorari (that is, they agree to hear a case) is if there is a conflict among the circuit courts as to the meaning of a federal law. There are three elements needed for a precedent to work. Firstly, the hierarchy of the courts needs to be accepted, and an efficient system of law reporting. "A balance must be struck between the need on one side for

Distinguishing - Misplaced Pages Continue

2604-532: The concept of estoppel starting in the High Trees case: Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130. Judges may refer to various types of persuasive authority to reach a decision in a case. Widely cited nonbinding sources include legal encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum and Halsbury's Laws of England , or the published work of the Law Commission or

2666-562: The decisions based on significant differences in the facts applicable to each case. Or, a court may view the matter before it as one of " first impression ", not governed by any controlling precedent. When various members of a multi-judge court write separate opinions, the reasoning may differ; only the ratio decidendi of the majority becomes binding precedent. For example, if a 12-member court splits 5–2–3–2 in four different opinions on several different issues, whatever reasoning commands seven votes on each specific issue becomes precedent, and

2728-525: The doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense. The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state , and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept

2790-437: The earlier decision's reasoning. Where a wide new class of distinguished cases is made, such as distinguishing all cases on privity of contract law in the establishment of the court-made tort of negligence or a case turns on too narrow a set of variations in facts ("turns on its own facts") compared to the routinely applicable precedent(s), such decisions are at high risk of being successfully overruled (by higher courts) on

2852-433: The force of law that statutes and judicial opinions have. But, they still have the potential to act as a sort of pseudo‑law if they constrain the activities of public officials or the public. Oftentimes, this effect depends on the "formality" of the opinion. Opinions can be either formal, meaning they are published, or informal, meaning that they are sent directly to the opinion requestor. Although formal opinions can act as

2914-506: The form of delegated legislation (in UK parlance) or regulatory law (in US parlance)). Case law , in common-law jurisdictions, is the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals or other rulings that can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law, which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of

2976-441: The hierarchy. A district court, for example, could not rely on a Supreme Court dissent as a basis to depart from the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, lower courts occasionally cite dissents, either for a limiting principle on the majority, or for propositions that are not stated in the majority opinion and not inconsistent with that majority, or to explain a disagreement with the majority and to urge reform (while following

3038-633: The influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent" later became associated with different issue: the difficulty of overturning a decision. In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in Roe v. Wade ), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by

3100-409: The judge distinguished Balfour v Balfour , deciding that the facts were materially different in that: (i) the husband and wife were separated and no longer "in amity"; and (ii) the agreement was made after they had separated, and in writing . In Read v Lyons (1947), (where a munitions worker was injured in a factory explosion), the court distinguished Rylands v Fletcher (1868) because in

3162-535: The law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court. The doctrine stating that a judge is bound by (or at least should respect) previous decisions by the same court is called horizontal stare decisis . For example, in the United States federal court system , the intermediate appellate courts are divided into thirteen "circuits", each covering some range of territory ranging in size from

SECTION 50

#1732775491457

3224-545: The law upon some important point". A leading decision may settle the law in more than one way. It may do so by: 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 . There is no universally agreed-to list of "leading decisions" in Canada. One indication, however, as to whether

3286-531: The law. Common law legal systems often view precedent as binding or persuasive, while civil law systems do not. Common-law systems aim for similar facts to yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observing precedent when making decisions is the mechanism to achieve that goal. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in

3348-453: The legal system. For example, an appellate court for one district could consider a ruling issued by an appeals court in another district. Courts may consider obiter dicta in the opinions of higher courts. The Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The phrase obiter dicta is usually translated as "other things said", but due to the high number of judges and individual concurring opinions, it

3410-436: The majority in the outcome). Courts may consider the writings of eminent legal scholars in treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews. The extent to which judges find these types of writings persuasive will vary widely with elements such as the reputation of the author and the relevance of the argument. In the United States, every state attorney general is permitted to issue advisory opinions on questions of law. It

3472-416: The majority opinion is considered precedential, an outvoted judge can still publish a dissenting opinion. Common patterns for dissenting opinions include: A judge in a subsequent case, particularly in a different jurisdiction, could find the dissenting judge's reasoning persuasive. In the jurisdiction of the original decision, however, a judge should only overturn the holding of a court lower or equivalent in

3534-402: The parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings. In law , a binding precedent (also known as a mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all lower courts under common law legal systems . In English law it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as

3596-433: The present case, even though the defendant factory kept "dangerous things on the land for a non-natural user", there was "no escape". Where an obiter dictum (a non-binding statement based on hypothetical facts) is subsequent followed and adopted, then the later case is said to "approve" that obiter , and the earlier case may be marked "approved", "followed", or "obiter followed". Binding authority Precedent

3658-429: The ruling (or the law itself is changed), the binding precedent is authoritative on the meaning of the law. Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts within their region. Thus, a federal district court that falls within the geographic boundaries of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the mid-level appeals court that hears appeals from district court decisions from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and

3720-408: The seven-judge majorities may differ issue-to-issue. All may be cited as persuasive (though of course opinions that concur in the majority result are more persuasive than dissents). Quite apart from the rules of precedent, the weight actually given to any reported opinion may depend on the reputation of both the court and the judges with respect to the specific issue. For example, in the United States,

3782-400: The significant facts of the precedent case are also presented in the pending case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant. In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent. Under

SECTION 60

#1732775491457

3844-476: The territory of a regional appeals court. All appellate courts fall under a highest court (sometimes but not always called a "supreme court"). By definition, decisions of lower courts are not binding on courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among

#456543