Editing Precedent (section)

==Types of precedent==
===Binding precedent===
Binding precedent, based on the legal principle of ''stare decisis,'' requires lower courts to follow the decisions of appellate courts in the same jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite web |title=Precedent and evidence |url=https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/find-legal-answers/books-online/hot-topics-courts-and-tribunals/precedent-and-evidence |access-date=2024-12-01 |work=Hot Topics: Courts and Tribunals |publisher=State Library of New South Wales |quote="A precedent is 'binding' on a court if the precedent was made by a superior court that is higher in the hierarchy of courts. A binding precedent must be followed if the precedent is relevant and the circumstances of the cases are sufficiently similar. For example, decisions of the High Court are binding on all courts in Australia, but a decision of the Supreme Court is not binding on the High Court, and a decision of the District Court is not binding on the Supreme Court."}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite web |title=binding precedent |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/binding_precedent |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="Binding precedent is a legal rule or principle, articulated by an appellate court, that must be followed by lower courts within its jurisdiction. Essentially, once an appellate court reviews a case, it will deliver a written opinion. This written opinion will include the court's determination on a question of law. This determination, known as a holding, is binding on all lower courts within the jurisdiction, meaning that lower courts must apply this decision when presented with similar facts. The lower courts are thus bound, or required to follow the legal precedent set by the higher court."}}</ref> In other words, when an appellate court resolves a [[question of law]], its determination, or "[[Holding (law)|holding]]," serves as precedent that lower courts are bound to apply in cases involving similar facts or legal issues.<ref name=":6" />

For example, in the United States, decisions of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], as the nation's highest court, are binding on all other courts nationwide.<ref name=":6" />

===Persuasive precedent===

Persuasive precedent refers to legal decisions that a court may consider but is not obligated to follow when deciding a case, as they are not binding.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web |title=Glossary {{!}} Practical Law - Legal Resources & Know-How for Professionals |url=https://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/Id4cf190ef3ad11e28578f7ccc38dcbee?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=content.next.westlaw.com |language=en-US |quote="Persuasive precedent. Precedent that a court may, but is not required to, rely on in deciding a case. Examples of persuasive precedent include: decisions from courts in neighboring jurisdictions; and dicta in a decision by a higher court."}}</ref> Examples include decisions from courts in neighboring jurisdictions and ''dicta'' from rulings by higher courts.<ref name=":8" /> In Australia, decisions of superior overseas courts, such as those from the United Kingdom, serve as persuasive precedent.<ref>{{cite web |title=Precedent and evidence |url=https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/find-legal-answers/books-online/hot-topics-courts-and-tribunals/precedent-and-evidence |access-date=2024-12-01 |work=Hot Topics: Courts and Tribunals |publisher=State Library of New South Wales |quote="A precedent is 'persuasive' if it was established by a superior court that is not higher in the hierarchy of courts. This means that the precedent should be seriously considered, but is not required to be followed. For example, a precedent established by the Supreme Court of New South Wales is persuasive but not binding on the Supreme Court of Victoria, since these courts are not in the same hierarchy and are of equal authority. Decisions of superior overseas courts, particularly the superior courts of the United Kingdom, are persuasive precedents in Australia."}}</ref>

Although not binding precedent, a court may choose to rely on persuasive precedent if the reasoning is compelling.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |title=persuasive authority |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/persuasive_authority |access-date=2024-12-01 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="Although court decisions of persuasive authority are not binding precedent, a court may choose to rely on and follow the decisions. Cases such as this one from Michigan explain that a court may follow the decisions of another jurisdiction if the reasoning is persuasive. Courts may also look to decisions from other jurisdictions for guidance; for example, when deciding issues of first impression—like this one from Colorado—or matters in which the forum state law is unclear—like this one from Utah. A court, however, will not follow decisions of persuasive authority when the decision is against the forum jurisdiction's public policy."}}</ref> Courts often turn to decisions from other jurisdictions for guidance, particularly when interpreting unclear laws or addressing "cases of first impression"—situations in which no prior binding authority exists and the court must determine the applicable law for the first time.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=case of first impression |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/case_of_first_impression |access-date=2024-11-27 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="A case of first impression is a case that presents a legal issue that has never been decided by the governing jurisdiction. ... A case of first impression lacks controlling precedent. In other words, a court deciding a case of first impression cannot rely on prior decisions nor is the court bound by stare decisis. To adopt the most persuasive rule of law, courts will look to various sources for guidance."}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-11-24 |title=Definition of CASE |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/case#legalDictionary |access-date=2024-12-04 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en |quote="— case of first impression: a case that presents an issue or question never before decided or considered by the court"}}</ref>

===Nonprecedential decisions===
{{main|Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States}}

Nonpublication of opinions, or unpublished opinions, are those decisions of courts that are not available for citation as precedent because the judges making the opinion deem the cases as having less precedential value. Selective publication is the legal process which a judge or justices of a court decide whether a decision is to be or not published in [[law reports|a reporter]]. "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the [[Federal Appendix]]. Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shafer |first=John |title=LibGuides: Depublication of California Cases: What is Depublication? |url=https://legalresearch.usfca.edu/c.php?g=523805&p=3580747 |access-date=2022-08-08 |website=legalresearch.usfca.edu |language=en}}</ref>

[[Litigation]] that is settled out of court generates no written decision, thus has no precedential effect. As one practical effect, the U.S. Department of Justice settles many cases against the federal government simply to avoid creating adverse precedent.<ref>{{Cite web |title=UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307 |access-date=2022-06-24 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref>