Also known as: precedent · precedents · stare decisis · binding precedent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule requiring courts to follow prior judicial decisions when deciding later cases that present similar facts and legal issues. The doctrine promotes consistency and predictability by treating earlier holdings as binding authority within the same jurisdiction.
Dominic Drake's will left his estate to his nephew if the nephew survived him, with a residuary clause directing any lapsed gifts to a charity. When the nephew predeceased Dominic, the probate court followed an earlier decision interpreting the Uniform Probate Code's definition of alternative devises and directed the property to the charity instead of the nephew's heirs.
Darrell Duncan, a judge, owned property whose value would rise if a pending zoning appeal succeeded. After he ruled in favor of the zoning change, the state supreme court followed prior precedent on judicial bias and vacated the judgment, ordering rehearing before a different tribunal.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Daphne Doyle sued a railroad in federal court after an accident in State A. The district court followed an earlier Supreme Court decision requiring federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases and therefore measured the railroad's duty of care under State A precedents rather than a general federal rule.
Dylan Duffy challenged an EPA regulation limiting emissions. The court of appeals followed an earlier Supreme Court decision limiting judicial review of agency procedures and upheld the rule because the agency had followed the notice-and-comment process required by statute.
Danielle Dixon sued the city after it took a strip of her land for a street without compensation. The court followed an earlier Supreme Court decision holding that the Due Process Clause incorporates the Takings Clause against the states and required the city to pay just compensation.
David Dawson's property was condemned for a private redevelopment project. The court followed an earlier Supreme Court decision permitting takings that serve a public purpose even when title transfers to another private party and upheld the condemnation.
Binding precedent must be followed by lower courts in the same jurisdiction when facts and issues are similar. Persuasive precedent from other jurisdictions or higher courts in different systems may be considered but is not mandatory.
Supporting sources
When a statute governs an issue, courts must apply the statute rather than create or follow conflicting common-law precedent. The legislature may also enact a statute that overturns a prior judicial precedent.
Supporting sources
No. Only the holding—the rule applied to the facts actually decided—creates binding precedent. Dicta, or statements not necessary to the decision, are not binding even if they appear in the opinion.
Supporting sources
Yes, a court may overrule its own earlier decision when the prior rule has become unworkable or when intervening developments have undermined its rationale, though courts generally adhere to precedent for stability.
Supporting sources
…considered manslaughter (though not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view.[^maj-25] A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime.[^maj-26] This is of some importance because while…