Also known as: judicial precedents · precedent · case law
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine under which courts must follow earlier judicial decisions that address the same legal issue when deciding later cases presenting substantially similar facts.
Jillian James drafted a will leaving her estate to her nephew if he survived her. After her death the nephew predeceased her, and the probate court followed an earlier decision interpreting identical language in another estate to treat the residuary clause as creating an alternative devise that prevented lapse.
James Johnson sat as plaintiff in pending litigation whose outcome would gain value from a precedent the current case would set. The reviewing court vacated the judgment and remanded for decision by a judge lacking any direct economic interest in the result.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jonathan Jaffe challenged an agency rule as exceeding statutory authority. The court applied an earlier decision that limited judicial review of agency procedures and upheld the rule because the agency had followed required steps.
Jose Jimenez sued a newspaper for publishing critical statements about his official conduct. The court applied an earlier decision requiring proof of actual malice and dismissed the claim for failure to meet that standard.
Jessica Jacobs opposed a city's taking of her property for economic redevelopment. The court followed an earlier decision permitting such takings when they serve a public purpose and upheld the condemnation.
Jerome Jackson sought recognition of his out-of-state same-sex marriage. The court applied an earlier decision holding that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples and ordered the state to recognize the marriage.
A court examines whether the facts and legal issues in the earlier case are substantially similar to those in the current dispute. If the cases share the same controlling rule and facts, the earlier holding governs the outcome.
The judge must recuse because the risk of bias violates due process. The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for decision by a neutral tribunal.
Yes. When the state court does not clearly state that it rests on independent state grounds, the Supreme Court presumes a federal basis and exercises jurisdiction.
…interpretations of the state statutes, are cited and quoted in Quay 447-520. See Comment, A Survey of the Present Statutory and Case Law on Abortion: The Contradictions and the Problems, 1972 U. Ill. L. F. 177, 179, classifying the abortion statutes and listing 25 States as permitting abortion only if necessary to save or…