Also known as: on all fours · on all fours with · on point
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A precedent or factual situation that matches the present case in every material respect. No legally significant distinction exists between the two.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Anita Ali sued a supplier in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after a contract dispute. The facts and procedural posture matched a prior Supreme Court decision exactly. Because the cases stood on all fours, the court applied the balance-of-interests test to decide whether state or federal practice governed the unresolved issue.
Alan Ackerman served a corporate defendant by certified mail under the Federal Rules. State law required service only through a statutory agent. The facts aligned on all fours with precedent holding that a valid Federal Rule governs in diversity cases, so the court denied the motion to dismiss.
Anthony Arnold challenged state legislative districts in federal court. The complaint and factual record were identical to an earlier suit dismissed for lack of justiciability. Because the cases stood on all fours, the court dismissed the new action on the same ground.
Austin Abbott sued in state court despite a contractual forum-selection clause. The facts and contract language matched a Supreme Court decision exactly. Standing on all fours with that precedent, the federal court transferred the case under the clause.
Andre Antoine sought a permit for a group home. The city's denial rested on the same ordinance and factual circumstances as a prior Supreme Court case. Because the situations stood on all fours, the court applied the same equal-protection analysis and invalidated the denial.
Atlas Ventures sued a foreign parent corporation in federal court. The contacts alleged were identical to those in a recent Supreme Court decision. Standing on all fours with that precedent, the court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
It means the facts, legal issues, and procedural posture are identical in every material respect. No meaningful distinction exists that would allow a court to reach a different result.
Supporting sources
When cases stand on all fours, the court follows the earlier decision without further analysis of distinguishing factors. This promotes consistency and predictability in the application of legal rules.
Supporting sources
Yes. Minor differences that do not affect the legal analysis may still allow the cases to stand on all fours. Any difference that could change the outcome prevents the cases from being on all fours.
Supporting sources
…context of this entire line of cases. Suffice it that they do not serve to distinguish Colegrove v. Barrett, supra , which is on all fours with the present case, or to distinguish Kidd v. McCanless , 352 U. S. 920, in which the full Court without dissent, only five years ago, dismissed on authority of Colegrove v. Green and…