Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. [1] [2] [3] Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided"), where past judicial decisions serve as case law to guide future rulings, thus promoting consistency and predictability.
In its first decision, the Federal Circuit incorporated as binding precedent the decisions of its predecessor courts, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the United States Court of Claims. [8] Because the Court is one of national jurisdiction, panels from the court may sit anywhere in the country.
Whether or not Chief Justice Waite's remark constitutes binding precedent is arguable, but subsequent rulings treat it as such. In other instances, obiter dicta can suggest an interpretation of law that has no bearing on the case at hand but might be useful in future cases. [ 2 ]
Only the reason for the decision of the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning may be adopted in an argument. Apart from the rules of procedure for precedent, the weight given to any reported judgment may depend on the reputation of both the reporter and the judges. [7]
For this reason, Fifth Circuit decisions from before this split are considered binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. [2] [3] The court is based at the Elbert P. Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia.
If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
A break from historical precedent. ... "But it's difficult to trust promises that aren't legally binding." Read the original article on Business Insider. Show comments. Advertisement.
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States "[held] that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule". [1]