What binds future conduct is a court’s judgment, not necessarily its reasoning

Evidence

Other legal scholars maintain that what is authoritative is the court’s ruling in the case, not the legal principles on which it was based. Thus, one may dispute those legal principles and engage in practices which, if legally challenged, would furnish the court with an opportunity to reconsider the principles it had announced. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3183

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sets out the competing doctrinal theories of precedent — judgment-binding versus principle-binding — that structure how lawyers argue the scope of a ruling.
• XREF: Connects to standard first-year civil procedure and constitutional law debates over stare decisis and dicta.