Want this question answered?
second circuit and supreme court
That depends on which court you're referring to. In the federal court system, the US Supreme Court sets binding (or mandatory) precedent for all lower courts; the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts set binding precedent for all US District Courts within their jurisdiction, but only persuasive precedent elsewhere; the US District Courts do not set binding precedent at all, they only set persuasive precedent.
A binding precedent is precedent that a court MUST follow (it is law). All prior judicial decisions in a specific court's jurisdiction heard at that court's level or higher are considered to be binding precedent. In contrast, persuasive precedent is precedent that a court need not follow (it is NOT law, but, as the name suggests, may be persuasive because it suggests a line of reasoning). All prior judicial decisions OUTSIDE of that court's jurisdiction or from a LOWER court are considered to be persuasive only.
If the Federal Court precedent is applicable to your situation it can be cited - HOWEVER - although they may consider it, it does NOT mean that it would be binding on them.
a legal precedent is principles of law set down by a higher court that are binding on lower courts in the same hierachy
A binding precedent is determined by the decision of a higher court on a legal issue. It sets a legal rule that must be followed by lower courts in the same jurisdiction when deciding similar cases. Binding precedents are typically created by appellate courts, such as a supreme court, and establish legal principles that guide future decisions.
A decision made by a higher court sets a binding precedent for the inferior court(s).
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa was created in 1845.
"Persuasive precedents" are decisions that are not binding on a court hearing a similar case, but which contain compelling legal reasoning or logic that the court finds convincing (persuasive) enough to apply to the case at bar. For example, a US District Court judge may agree with a decision made in a comparable state court case, adopt the reasoning, and cite the first case in the opinion of the second case. Only appellate courts with jurisdiction over a lower court may creating binding precedents (decisions that must be followed); a court may choose to follow a non-binding precedent that doesn't conflict with a binding precedent or law. These are commonly referred to as "persuasive precedents."
Ratio decidendi refers to the legal reasoning behind a court's decision that forms the binding precedent in future cases. Obiter dicta are statements or opinions made by the court that are not essential to the decision and do not create binding precedent, but may provide guidance or insight on the case.
None. U. S. District Courts do not establish binding precedents.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia was created on 1848-08-11.