Also known as: on all fours with · on point
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A precedent that matches the facts and legal issues of the case at bar in all material respects.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Olivia Owens sued in federal court under diversity jurisdiction after a state procedural rule appeared to conflict with federal practice. Her lawyer argued that a prior decision was on all fours with the pending dispute because both involved the same characterization problem and the same state and federal interests. The court agreed and applied the state rule after weighing the competing interests.
Osprey Aviation filed a diversity action and invoked a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that differed from state procedure. Counsel contended that an earlier Supreme Court decision was on all fours because both cases presented a valid federal rule on point. The court followed the federal rule and rejected the state practice.
Odin Obeng challenged a state legislative map in federal court. His attorney asserted that a prior decision was on all fours because the factual allegations and constitutional claims were identical. The court treated the earlier ruling as controlling and denied the motion to dismiss.
Omega Energy sued in state court despite a contractual forum selection clause. The defendant moved to transfer and argued that a Supreme Court decision was on all fours because both cases involved enforcement of such a clause under federal law. The court granted the motion and transferred the case.
Odessa Okada sought to operate a group home and challenged a zoning ordinance. Counsel maintained that an earlier decision was on all fours because the ordinance and the equal protection claim matched exactly. The court applied the precedent and struck down the ordinance as applied.
Outback Mining sued a foreign parent corporation in a state where only a subsidiary had contacts. The defendant moved to dismiss and argued that a Supreme Court decision was on all fours because the contacts analysis was identical. The court granted the motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
It means the precedent matches the pending case in all material facts and legal issues so that the earlier decision controls.
The court compares the facts and legal questions of the two cases to see whether they are identical in every material respect.
No. Even an identical case from another jurisdiction supplies only persuasive authority and does not bind the court.
The court must follow the precedent because it supplies the governing rule on the identical facts and law.
…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…