A binding precedent obliges courts to follow it or distinguish it.

Evidence

Not so, however, when an advocate or a lower court judge can distinguish the instant case from the precedent case. Although it might be said that a binding precedent from a higher court simply obliges the lower court to follow it, it would be more accurate to say that a binding precedent obliges a lower court to follow it or to distinguish it from the instant case. In practice, a great deal of legal argument involves the attempt by one side to claim that some higher court case controls the result in the instant case, while the other side insists that there is a sufficient distinction between the two that the outcome in the precedent case need not be the outcome in the instant case. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 102

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precise formulation of the follow-or-distinguish structure of precedent, a core doctrinal mechanic.
• XREF: connects to: Obeying rules, precedent, and authority means deciding against one’s own best judgment. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 15; Precedent obliges judges to follow cases they believe were wrongly decided. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 69; Materiality of a new circumstance determines whether precedent extends to analogous facts. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1292 (+10 more)

Related

• A case is precedent only when material facts match exactly (similarity 0.86)
• Precedent constrains outcomes while analogy merely supports arguments (similarity 0.85)
• Precedent obliges judges to follow cases they believe were wrongly decided. (similarity 0.84)
• A judicial precedent attaches specific legal consequences to detailed case facts. (similarity 0.84)
• Persuasion by past reasoning is not the same as obeying precedent. (similarity 0.83)
• Materiality of a new circumstance determines whether precedent extends to analogous facts. (similarity 0.81)
• Stare decisis requires treating prior decisions as binding regardless of perceived correctness. (similarity 0.81)
• Advocates debate whether case factual similarities are legally material (similarity 0.80)
• Obeying rules, precedent, and authority means deciding against one’s own best judgment. (similarity 0.79)
• The precedent system itself depends on what is technically dicta. (similarity 0.78)
• A case precedent only holds for the precise issue before it (similarity 0.78)
• Legal duty requires specific characteristics present in all precedent cases (similarity 0.78)
• Stare decisis binds only when judges would rather not follow precedent (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Materiality of a new circumstance determines whether precedent extends to analogous facts. #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1292
• A case precedent only holds for the precise issue before it #qualifies (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1237
• A case is precedent only when material facts match exactly #qualifies (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1299
• Common-law principles help judges determine if case differences are significant #expands (0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 715
• The formal principle of justice requires treating relevantly similar cases alike #corroborates (0.40) — HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Law…, 418