Precedents that are not mandatory, but useful or relevant, are called persuasive precedents (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Compelling precedents include cases decided by lower courts, even or superior courts of other geographic jurisdictions, cases in other parallel systems (e.g., military courts, administrative tribunals, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts as opposed to federal courts in the United States) and, in certain exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, judicial bodies. global, etc. A precedent can be used in a court decision when it usually coincides exactly with a case before the court. They also have the binding power to maintain the balance of fair and stable justice, because in this case the law has been solemnly declared and established. In a controversial 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed the over-reliance of American lawyers on the authoritarian and persuasive, rather than substantive, authority of the present case as a major factor in escalating legal fees in the 20th century. He argued that courts should prohibit the citing of compelling precedents outside their jurisdiction, with two exceptions: precedents can only be useful if they show that the case was decided according to a certain principle and should not be binding if they contradict such a principle. If a precedent must be followed because it is a precedent, even if it is decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses, because the fact of its existence places it above the law. It is always prudent to rely on principles. Precedents are not “binding” for a judge or “binding” in the sense that laws bind citizens. A judge cannot be imprisoned or fined if he or she does not agree. His oath is not a precedent, but at least for federal judges, it is “the Constitution and laws of the United States.” The canons, archived at the Wayback Machine of Judicial Ethics in 2015-04-18, do not mention obedience to precedents, but to “the federal Constitution and that of the state whose laws they administer.” The Code of Judicial Conduct says nothing about precedents. In most cases, precedent is the most reasonable interpretation of the Constitution and our laws, in which case the oath to the Constitution is most faithfully observed following precedents.
But if a judge finds that the interpretation of the Constitution in a majority opinion is not persuasive compared to the dissenting interpretation, then following a precedent may violate the judge`s oath. In a decision in which Justice Roy Moore saw such a distinction, he recognized his authority as a precedent, but stated: “The interpretation of the Constitution [by the majority of the Supreme Court] is its interpretation. But nothing can contradict the oath of a sworn officer to the constitution. Of course, the chaos is the result of reckless disregard for precedent. Citizens who are trying to obey the law need to have an idea of what the law is. In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term “super-precedent” in a paper they wrote about verifying theories of precedents by counting citations.  Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term “superprecedent” was then associated with another issue: the difficulty of reversing a decision.  In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court`s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for arguing that if one party can take control of the Court on an issue of great national importance (as in Roe v. Wade), that party can protect its position from being overthrown “by some sort of superstar decider.”  The precedent on a subject is the set of principles promulgated by the court that a court should take into account when interpreting the law.
When a precedent establishes an important legal principle or constitutes new or amended law on a particular issue, that precedent is often referred to as a landmark decision. Precedents are at the heart of analysis and legal decisions in common law countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada (except Quebec). In some systems, precedents are not binding, but are taken into account by the courts. Precedents are usually set by a series of decisions. Sometimes a single decision can set a precedent. For example, a single interpretation of the law by a state`s highest court is generally considered to be initially part of the law. “In law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a particular law, has the force and authority that a judge can give it, thus greatly simplifying his task of doing what he wants. Since there are precedents for everything, he only has to ignore those who speak against his interest and emphasize those who are in line with his desire. The invention of a precedent elevates the trial of the small succession of a fortuitous test to the noble posture of an orientable arbiter. – Ambrose Bierce In common law systems, a precedent or authority is a legal matter that establishes a principle or rule.  This principle or rule is then applied by the court or other judicial authorities when deciding subsequent cases involving similar issues or facts.
 The use of precedents ensures the predictability, stability, fairness and effectiveness of the law. The Latin term stare decisis is the doctrine of the former.  Precedent is a legal principle created by a judicial decision and is an example or authority for judges who later rule on similar issues.3 min read In exceptional circumstances, a superior court may strike down or overturn mandatory precedents, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before it is repealed, thus limiting the scope of the previous one in all cases. The issue resurfaced during the questioning of Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito during their confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Before the hearings, the committee`s chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling Roe a “super-precedent.” He mentioned the concept (and made seemingly humorous references to a “super-duper precedent”), but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or concept.  In a first impression case, courts often rely on compelling precedents from courts in other jurisdictions that have dealt with similar issues before.
Convincing precedents can become binding by the acceptance of the convincing precedent by a higher court. Precedent is a legal principle created by a judicial decision that is an example or authority for judges who later decide similar matters. In general, decisions of higher courts (within a particular court system) are binding precedents for lower courts in that system. This means that the principle promulgated by a higher court must be followed in subsequent cases. According to Lord Talbot, “it is much better to follow the well-known general rules than to follow a certain precedent which might be based on a reason unknown to us”. Blackstone says that a previous decision must generally be followed unless it is “patently absurd or unfair,” and in the latter case, if overturned, it is explained not that the previous decision was bad law, but that it was not law. If the facts or problems of a case differ from those of a previous case, the previous case cannot set a precedent. The Supreme Court in Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. reiterated that “[t]he issues that are merely hidden in the record have not been brought to the attention of the court or decided, not as..
Previous. Accordingly, an earlier decision serves only as a precedent for matters that the Tribunal expressly considered in its decision in light of the particular facts. Long-standing habits, traditionally recognized by courts and judges, are the first type of precedent. Habit can be so deeply rooted in society as a whole that it becomes law. It is never necessary for a specific case to have been decided on the same or similar issues for a court to take note of customary or traditional precedents in its deliberations. For example, the California Supreme Court`s decision that unmarried people living together can enter into cohabitation agreements (Marv. Marvin), in all California courts of appeals and trial (which are subordinate courts to the California Supreme Court). Similarly, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest court in the land) are generally binding on all other courts in the United States.
A precedent refers to a judicial decision that is considered an authority to decide subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts or similar legal issues.