Topics
Explanation
1. This table categorises and explains different ways courts interact with precedent—previous legal decisions that influence how future cases are decided. In common law systems, case law plays a crucial role in shaping legal principles, and courts follow established rules of precedent to determine how prior decisions should apply to new cases.
2. Each row in the table describes a specific type of case law relationship, detailing how courts treat earlier judicial decisions.
| Relationship Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Binding Precedent | A legal principle established by a higher court that must be followed by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive Authority | A legal decision that courts may consider and follow but are not obligated to do so. This includes decisions from courts in other jurisdictions or courts at the same level. Persuasiveness depends on factors such as the court’s standing and reasoning quality. |
| Distinguished | When a court explains why a seemingly relevant precedent does not apply due to material factual differences between the cases. The precedent remains valid but is not followed in the present case. |
| Overruled | When a higher court explicitly overturns a legal principle established in a previous case. The overruled decision is no longer good law and ceases to be binding. |
| Applied | When a court directly applies the reasoning or principle from a previous case to a case with similar legal issues. The facts must be sufficiently similar for the principle to be relevant. |
| Followed | When a court expressly adheres to a precedent and applies it to a case, even if the facts are slightly different. This may involve extending the principle to new factual scenarios. |
| Considered but Not Followed | When a court acknowledges a precedent but chooses not to follow it without formally distinguishing it. This often occurs when the precedent is from a different jurisdiction or context. The court respects the reasoning but finds it unsuitable for the current case. |
| Approved | When a higher court endorses the reasoning of a lower court, thereby strengthening its precedential value. This affirms the lower court’s decision as good law. |
| Per Incuriam | A decision made “through lack of care”, typically when a court fails to consider a relevant statute or binding precedent. Such decisions are often deemed weak and may not be followed. |
| Sub Silentio | A decision that fails to acknowledge or consider a relevant legal principle, reducing its precedential weight. Courts may later clarify or disregard such decisions. |
| Obiter Dicta | Statements made “by the way” in a judgment that are not essential to the decision. While not binding, obiter dicta from superior courts can be highly persuasive in later cases. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The binding part of a judgment—the legal reasoning necessary to the decision. This forms the precedent that must be followed in future cases. |
| Doubted | When a court expresses doubt about the correctness of a previous decision but does not overrule it. This weakens the precedent and signals that it may be overturned in the future. |
| Explained | When a court clarifies the scope or meaning of a previous decision, refining its application in future cases. This helps resolve ambiguities in legal principles. |
| Analogous Reasoning | When two courts reach similar conclusions on legal principles through independent reasoning. The cases are not binding on each other but support a consistent legal approach. |
Specific type of case law relationship
3. Each row in the table describes a specific type of case law relationship detailing how courts treat earlier judicial decisions.
4. The key relationships fall into the following categories:
Binding and Persuasive Authority
5. Binding Precedent: A rule established by a higher court that must be followed by lower courts within the same jurisdiction. This ensures legal consistency.
6. Persuasive Authority: A decision that a court may follow but is not required to, such as judgments from courts in other countries or at the same level.
How Courts Modify or Reject Precedent
7. Overruled: A higher court declares an earlier decision incorrect, removing it as valid law.
8. Doubted: A court expresses skepticism about an earlier decision without formally overruling it. This weakens the precedent and signals potential future change.
9. Distinguished: A court explains why a precedent does not apply due to material differences in facts, meaning the earlier case is not followed.
10. Considered but Not Followed: A precedent is acknowledged but not applied, often because it comes from another jurisdiction or is deemed unsuitable for the current case.
11. Per Incuriam: A decision made by mistake because the court overlooked a key statute or binding precedent, meaning it may not have strong legal authority.
12. Sub Silentio: A ruling made without mentioning a relevant legal principle. This reduces the case’s precedential weight.
How Courts Endorse or Clarify Precedent
13. Applied: A court directly applies the principle from a previous case when the facts are sufficiently similar.
14. Followed: A precedent is explicitly adhered to, even if the facts differ slightly, sometimes extending the legal principle.
15. Approved: A higher court endorses a lower court’s reasoning, strengthening its authority.
16. Explained: A court clarifies the meaning or scope of a past decision to refine its application in future cases.
The Components of Judicial Reasoning
17. Ratio Decidendi: The binding legal reasoning behind a decision, which future courts must follow.
18. Obiter Dicta: Additional non-binding comments made by a judge, which may still be persuasive in future cases.
Cases with Similar Outcomes
19. Analogous Reasoning (formerly ‘Paralleled’): Two courts independently arrive at the same legal conclusion without directly relying on each other’s reasoning.
Why This Table Matters
20. This classification helps understand how case law develops and evolves over time. It illustrates the hierarchy of authority in court decisions, how judges balance respect for precedent with legal innovation, and how courts handle inconsistencies in prior rulings.