Elevating a single case holding to a principle causes improper legal breadth.

Evidence

When a specific holding of a case is suddenly anointed with the chrism of “principle,” it has a very real effect on the doctrine of stare decisis. There is always the danger that a commentator or a subsequent opinion writer, either in the same court or another, will elevate the decision’s naked holding to the dignity of a legal “principle,” and attribute to that single decision a precedential breadth never intended. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 136

Categorization

  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 136
  • XREF: connects to: Valid legal analogies depend on relevant similarities rather than case quantities — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 343; An unprincipled and unsound legal argument can never be right — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 83; Case by case adjudication allows unfair rules to be modified. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 119 (+13 more)

Broader Connections