Editing Precedent (section)

==Principles==

=== ''Stare decisis'' ===
''Stare decisis'' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|s|t|ɛə|r|i|_|d|ᵻ|ˈ|s|aɪ|s|ᵻ|s|,_|ˈ|s|t|ɑː|r|eɪ}}) is a judicial doctrine under which courts follow the principles, rules, or standards established in their prior decisions (or those of higher courts) when deciding cases involving the same or closely related issues.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Historical Background on Stare Decisis Doctrine {{!}} Constitution Annotated {{!}} Congress.gov {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-7-2-1/ALDE_00001187/ |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=constitution.congress.gov |language=en |quote="Stare decisis, Latin for to stand by things decided, is a judicial doctrine under which a court follows the principles, rules, or standards of its prior decisions (or decisions of higher tribunals) when deciding a case with arguably similar facts."}}</ref> The term originates from the [[Latin]] phrase ''stare decisis et non quieta movere,'' meaning to "stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Historical Background on Stare Decisis Doctrine {{!}} Constitution Annotated {{!}} Congress.gov {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-7-2-1/ALDE_00001187/#ALDF_00021136 |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=constitution.congress.gov |language=en |quote="The full Latin phrase is stare decisis et non quieta movere—stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm. See James C. Rehnquist, Note, The Power That Shall Be Vested in a Precedent: Stare Decisis, The Constitution, and the Supreme Court, 66 B.U. L. Rev. 345, 347 (1986)."}}</ref>

The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Vertical ''stare decisis'' binds lower courts to strictly follow the decisions of higher courts within the same jurisdiction.<ref name="Cornell-definition">{{cite web |title=stare decisis |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis |access-date=1 December 2024 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. 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. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be vertical stare decisis. Or, additionally, if the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York adhered to a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, that would be vertical stare decisis."}}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]] Court of Appeals applying a precedent set by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] is an example of vertical ''stare decisis''.<ref name="Cornell-definition" /> Horizontal ''stare decisis'' refers the principle that a court adheres to its own previous rulings.<ref name="Cornell-definition" />

In the modern era, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] adheres to its prior decisions unless there is a <q>special justification</q> to overrule precedent.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |title=Stare Decisis Doctrine Generally {{!}} Constitution Annotated {{!}} Congress.gov {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-7-2-2/ALDE_00013237/ |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=constitution.congress.gov |language=en |quote="In the modern era, the Supreme Court has applied the doctrine of stare decisis by following the rules of its prior decisions unless there is a special justification—or, at least, strong grounds—to overrule precedent. This justification must amount to more than a disagreement with a prior decision's reasoning. In adopting this approach, the Court has rejected a strict view of stare decisis that would require it to adhere to its prior decisions regardless of those decisions' merits or the practical implications of retaining or discarding precedent."}}</ref> By taking this approach, the Court has rejected a strict view of ''stare decisis'' that would require it to uphold past rulings regardless of their merits or the practical consequences of maintaining or overturning them.<ref name=":7" />

=== ''Ratio decidendi'' and ''obiter dicta'' ===
''[[Ratio decidendi]]'' ("the reason for the decision") refers to the key factual element or line of reasoning in a case that forms the basis for the court's final judgment.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |title=ratio decidendi |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ratio_decidendi |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="Ratio decidendi is Latin for 'rationale for the decision.' The term refers to a key factual point or chain of reasoning in a case that drives the final judgment... Ratio decidendi is the basis for a court decision and creates binding precedent. "}}</ref> It forms the basis for a court decision and creates binding precedent.<ref name=":4" /> This distinguishes it from other parts of a judicial opinion, such as ''[[Obiter dictum|obiter dicta]]'' (non-binding observations or comments).

In contrast, [[Obiter dictum|''obiter dicta'']] ("something said in passing") refers to comments, suggestions, or observations made by a judge in an opinion that are not necessary to resolve the case at hand.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |title=obiter dicta |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obiter_dicta |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="Obiter dicta is the plural form of obiter dictum, which is Latin for "something said in passing." The term describes comments, suggestions, or observations made by a judge in an opinion that are not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, are not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation. Also referred to as dictum, dicta, and judicial dicta. A dissenting opinion is also generally considered obiter dictum."}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Obiter dictum {{!}} Legal Definition, Use, & Examples {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/obiter-dictum |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en |quote="obiter dictum, Latin phrase meaning 'that which is said in passing,' an incidental statement. Specifically, in law, it refers to a passage in a judicial opinion which is not necessary for the decision of the case before the court. Such statements lack the force of precedent but may nevertheless be significant."}}</ref> While not legally binding on other courts, such statements may be cited as persuasive authority in subsequent litigation.<ref name=":5" />

=== Hierarchy of courts ===

==== Federalism and parallel state and federal courts ====
In federal systems the division between federal and state law may result in complex interactions. In the United States, state courts are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system.
*  When a federal court rules on an issue of state law, the federal court must follow the precedent of the state courts, under the [[Erie doctrine]]. If an issue of state law arises during a case in federal court, and there is no decision on point from the highest court of the state, the federal court must either attempt to predict how the state courts would resolve the issue by looking at decisions from state appellate courts, or, if allowed by the constitution of the relevant state, [[certified question|submit]] the question to the state's courts.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mandatory v. Persuasive |url=http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121025142246/http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm |archive-date=25 October 2012 |access-date=2 November 2012 |publisher=Faculty.law.lsu.edu}}</ref>
* On the other hand, when a state court rules on an issue of federal law, the state court is bound only by rulings of the Supreme Court, but not by decisions of federal district or circuit courts of appeals.<ref name="40 Cal. 4th 1370, 1416">''People v. Leonard'', [http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/40C4t1370.htm 40 Cal. 4th 1370, 1416] (2007) (Ninth Circuit decisions do not bind Supreme Court of California).</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Martin |first1=John H. |date=1972–1973 |title=51 Texas Law Review 1972-1973 Binding Effect of Federal Declaratory Judgments on State Courts Comment |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tlr51&div=41&id=&page= |journal=Texas Law Review |volume=51 |page=743 |access-date=2 November 2012}}</ref><ref>[[United States federal courts]]</ref> However, some states have adopted a practice of considering themselves bound by rulings of the court of appeals embracing their states, as a matter of comity rather than constitutional obligation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Wrabley |first=Colin E. |year=2006 |title=Applying Federal Court of Appeals' Precedent: Contrasting Approaches to Applying Court of Appeals' Federal Law Holdings and Erie State Law Predictions, 3 Seton Hall Circuit Rev. 1 |url=http://m.reedsmith.com/files/Publication/f2d6419f-4ea8-4b31-a1f2-e2c5752ac77d/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/84ab3eeb-9a19-419c-9776-009a4e40288a/Wrabley.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161017100213/https://m.reedsmith.com/files/Publication/f2d6419f-4ea8-4b31-a1f2-e2c5752ac77d/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/84ab3eeb-9a19-419c-9776-009a4e40288a/Wrabley.pdf |archive-date=17 October 2016 |access-date=2 March 2016 |website=m.reedsmith.com}}</ref>

In practice, however, judges in one system will almost always choose to follow relevant case law in the other system to prevent divergent results and to minimize [[forum shopping]].