A precedent also may be referred to as the “holding” of a case. Typically, an appellate court establishes precedent. This could be a U. S. Court of Appeals, the U. S. Supreme Court, or a state appeals or supreme court. However, courts can also look to other equivalent courts for precedent. For instance, the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana might look to the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for precedent in some cases. The other meaning of precedent in law refers to a model document or clause that a lawyer bases the drafting of clauses, contracts, agreements, etc. from.
You might also look to the part of the opinion in which the court identifies which party won the case. The rule may be located near the winning party’s name in the text. For an appellate court opinion, you can look for the outcome of the appeal. The court usually states that it “reverses” or overturns the lower court’s decision, or that it “affirms,” or agrees with the lower court’s decision. A useful tool used in many law schools is requiring students to “brief” the court cases that they read. By mapping out the facts, rule of law, analysis, and conclusion separately, you may be able to better understand the rule of law of the case.
As many laws are quite detailed, you also should take note of which section or provision of the law is discussed in this case.
For instance, up until the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision, many courts in states nationwide have considered whether there is a fundamental right for gay couples to marry under the U. S. Constitution. Some courts interpreted the Constitution to create a fundamental right to gay marriage. Other courts reached the opposite conclusion by applying the same law to the same facts. This example shows how difficult it can be to apply the law to the facts and how courts can reach completely opposite conclusions.
Some court decisions address a point of law using very broad, generalized principles that can apply to a variety of factual situations. For instance, suppose a case established a rule of law that the Uniform Commercial Code applies to the sale of all motor vehicles. If the precedent case dealt with a truck, a court that later had a similar case involving a car rather than a truck would still follow the same rule of law. Other decisions are very fact-specific and restricted only to the case in which the rule is stated. A narrow rule of law gives courts the ability to distinguish similar cases based on slightly different facts from the precedent. If a rule of law only applies to a very specific factual situation, then courts won’t be necessarily bound to reach the same result in cases in which the facts vary somewhat.
