0
What is the difference between a binding precedent and a persuasive precedent?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
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.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 14y agoBinding 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.
Here are some examples of binding vs. persuasive precedent:
- In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (which is a federal trial level court), all decisions from that district, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court for that district), and the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest federal court) are BINDING precedent. Anything decision NOT made by those courts is persuasive only.
- In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, only decisions from the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court are binding. All others are persuasive.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What two types of precedent are there in doctrine of precedent?
binding(mandatory) precedent persuasive precedent
To what extent are precedent are binding or not binding?
it depends on how old the precedent is, how closely related is it to the case you are looking at and the difference between your precedent and crown/defense lawyer's precedent
Is court precedent mandatory or persuasive?
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.
What is mean by persuasive precedent?
this is not absolutely binding on a court but may be applied for instance if there is a case with no binding authority if the judge believes they have applied the correct legal principle and reasoning.
In law What is primary persuasive?
Primary persuasive authority refers to legal sources that courts consider to be most authoritative and influential when making decisions, such as statutes, regulations, and binding precedent from higher courts. These sources carry more weight in legal arguments compared to secondary sources like legal commentary or persuasive precedent. Courts typically rely on primary persuasive authority to guide their decisions and establish legal interpretations.
What does obiter dictum means?
Obiter dictum refers to remarks made by a judge in a legal opinion that are not essential to the decision of the case. These comments are considered persuasive but not binding precedent.
What does it mean when a decision in state court is persuasive in federal court?
"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."
What is the doctrine of precedent that states the decisions of other courts which are not binding on a judge?
There is no doctrine of non-binding precedents. Non-binding opinions that may be used as guidelines for deciding future cases are called persuasive precedents. Binding precedents are upheld under the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand).
Difference between late binding and early binding?
different between late and early binding
What does the system of judicial precedent mean?
The way the question is asked: USING judicial precedent, means that the judge is following the lead of a decision in a similar case that has already been decided upon and he is ruling the same way using the other case as a guideline. If the questioner meant to ask what does SETTING judicial precedent mean. . . that means that the judge was rendering a decision in a case of a type that had never been tried, or ruled upon, in the past, and that his verdict would set the 'precedent' by which all future cases might be judged. Judges, by the way, do NOT necessarily have to follow precedent in making rulings.
What are the principles under the doctrine of binding precedent?
The principles under the doctrine of binding precedent are that the courts must use past solutions. They apply when the law is not unreasonable or inconvenient.
What is a legal precedent?
a legal precedent is principles of law set down by a higher court that are binding on lower courts in the same hierachy
