How Courts Differentiate Common Law Precedents

The common law system, used in the United States and originating in England, is based on court decisions rather than statutes passed by the legislature. The doctrine of stare decisis, which means let the decision stand or to stand by things decided in Latin, is foundational to the American legal system. It holds that courts and judges should honour precedent, or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. In common law education, a staple part is learning that cases are 'distinguishable', and a good common lawyer will be able to grasp the law as not stated by the earlier court. This is because the law is regarded as subject to various distinctions not mentioned by the earlier court.

Stare decisis

There are two types of stare decisis: vertical and horizontal. Vertical stare decisis is the idea that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts. This is deeply entrenched in the American legal system and is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme". Lower courts are obligated to adhere to rulings made by higher or appellate courts within the same jurisdiction as they have persuasive authority. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis.

Courts will distinguish between types of stare decisis depending on the case. For example, in Richman Towers Tenants Assn Inc v Richman Towers LLC, it was discussed that questions that are simply in the record but are not brought to the court’s notice or decided upon are not to be regarded as precedent-setting decisions and do not have persuasive authority. In Cooks v. State, it was reiterated that “the rule of stare decisis is a wholesome one, [but] it should not be used to sanctify and perpetuate error”.

While stare decisis is a foundational concept in the American legal system, it is not an "inexorable command". In certain cases, courts may overturn prior rulings. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court overturned the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1893). Plessy held that "separate but equal" public accommodations did not violate the Constitution. However, in the former case, the Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.

Binding precedent

The doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin term that means "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided", is a foundational concept in the American legal system. It holds that courts and judges should honour "precedent"—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable.

Vertical stare decisis obligates lower courts to adhere strictly to rulings made by higher or appellate courts within the same jurisdiction as they have persuasive authority. For example, an appellate court must abide by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it is the federal court of last resort with binding authority. This idea is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme".

However, stare decisis may be simple at its core, but there are nuances and limits in the way it is applied. For example, courts often hear cases where following precedent may lead to unjust outcomes. In those cases, the judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or to outright overturn prior rulings. Many rulings are based on specific facts at a given moment in history, and as the nation develops and changes—as a result of new technologies or demographic shifts—the justifications and interpretations of prior decisions may lose support.

Horizontal and vertical stare decisis

The doctrine of stare decisis, which translates to "to stand by things decided," is a common-law concept that holds that courts should honour precedent. In other words, when a court faces a legal argument, it will make its decision in alignment with a previous court's decision on the same or a closely related issue. The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically.

Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent or that of another court of the same level. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis. While not binding in the same way as vertical stare decisis, decisions of the same court should be followed as a matter of judicial comity. A decision may not be binding if it is distinguishable on its facts or if the court has no practical way of knowing it existed.

Vertical stare decisis refers to the application of precedent that a higher court established. For example, U.S. District Courts might refer to past Supreme Court decisions in deciding a case. This idea is deeply entrenched in the American legal system, where the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts. This is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme".

In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest authority regarding stare decisis. State supreme courts set precedents and resolve conflicting interpretations of state laws. Supreme courts can overturn precedent, and justices making such decisions often argue that a previous doctrine was unworkable in the context of a case being decided, that significant social changes have occurred since the precedent was set, or that the most recent precedent violated an earlier one.

Overturning prior rulings

The concept of stare decisis, derived from the Latin term "let the decision stand", is a foundational concept in the American legal system. It holds that courts and judges should honour "precedent", meaning that the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases are to be respected and upheld. This gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable.

However, stare decisis is not an absolute principle, and there are instances where courts may overturn prior rulings. For example, vertical stare decisis dictates that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over those of lower courts, and as such, a higher court may overturn the decision of a lower court. This is often the case when a higher court finds that a lower court did not properly apply or interpret a law or constitutional provision.

Additionally, as the nation develops and changes due to new technologies, demographic shifts, or significant social changes, the interpretations and justifications of prior decisions may lose support, and a court may choose to overturn a previous ruling. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court directly overturned the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1893), which held that "separate but equal" public accommodations did not violate the Constitution.

Furthermore, while some rulings may be considered "super precedents" that are fundamental to American justice and virtually permanent, the Supreme Court may still overturn its own prior decisions if it finds strong grounds to do so. This was evident in the recent precedent-busting term, where the Court overturned longstanding precedents related to abortion rights, environmental protection, and the separation between church and state.

When considering whether to overturn a prior ruling, the Supreme Court weighs various factors, including the potential impact on its legitimacy and the likely public reaction.

Common law precedent

Common law, also known as judicial precedent, is a body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. It is deeply rooted in the concept of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided" in Latin. This concept dictates that courts and judges should honour precedent, or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents ensures consistency and predictability in the law.

In common law, precedent can be binding or persuasive. Binding precedent refers to decisions that courts must follow, while persuasive precedent is something they can consider but are not obligated to follow. Common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent and can reinterpret and revise the law if there is an extraordinarily good reason, without requiring legislative intervention. This flexibility allows the common law to adapt to new trends in political, legal, and social philosophy over time.

The process of distinguishing precedent is a staple part of common law education. Lawyers and judges must learn to grasp the law as not explicitly stated by the earlier court and understand that cases may be "distinguishable." This skill is essential when determining how to apply precedent to new cases with similar but not identical facts.

When a similar case has already been resolved, courts typically align their reasoning with the precedent set in that decision. However, in cases of first impression with no clear precedent or legislative guidance, judges have the power to establish new precedent. This evolution of the common law is a gradual process that works out the details over time, reducing disruptive effects.

The weight given to precedent can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific legal system. For example, in vertical stare decisis, lower courts are obligated to strictly adhere to the rulings of higher courts within the same jurisdiction. On the other hand, civil law systems, such as France, tend to have less emphasis on precedent and focus more on fact-finding and applying codified law.

Frequently asked questions