Precedent binds lower courts to higher rulings, but not courts of equal rank.

Evidence

In a hierarchical legal system, lower court judges are obliged to decide cases in line with the precedents established by higher courts. For example, a ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court on a matter of Minnesota state law is authoritative and binding on judges in the state’s trial courts. A ruling by a court of similar rank, however, does not constitute authoritative precedent in the sense that it need not be followed. For example, a federal court of appeals may interpret a federal law in a particular way, but another federal court of appeals is not obliged to accept the first court’s interpretation of the law. Nor, in the United States, is a court legally obliged to adhere to its own previous decisions. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2484

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes authoritative from merely persuasive precedent by the vertical hierarchy of courts.
• XREF: Pairs with the chapter’s opening discussion of Lawrence v. Texas overruling Bowers v. Hardwick to show horizontal non-bindingness in action.