persuasive precedent

Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.

Persuasive precedent includes decisions of courts lower in the hierarchy.

The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one that courts can and do ignore occasionally.

International rulings can be offered as persuasive precedent, but not binding precedent.

He argued that courts should ban the citation of persuasive precedent from outside their jurisdiction, with two exceptions:

Justice Chua rejected this argument, and accepted the majority decision in Liversidge as persuasive precedent.

Both the majority and dissenting judgments in the case have been cited as persuasive precedent by various countries of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Persuasive precedent:

In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues.

This was a District level ruling and, while setting a persuasive precedent, it was only a binding precedent in the relevant district.

This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge - thus a jury has the power to influence the law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation rejoiced at the "persuasive precedent" the case will set, though Righthaven told the judge it would appeal.

Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent).

However, the close alignment of the two countries' legal systems and business interests may signal knock-on effects in Australia, with the potential for the US verdict to establish persuasive precedent.

But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming the point of law is one on which there is no binding precedent already in effect).

(2) instances where a litigant intends to ask the highest court of the jurisdiction to overturn binding precedent, and therefore needs to cite persuasive precedent to demonstrate a trend in other jurisdictions.

Lord President Suffian cited as persuasive precedent the decision of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Indian case Bhutnath v. State of West Bengal, where Iyer stated:

To the court, the more persuasive precedent was Ex parte Quirin, in which the court recognized its duty to enforce relevant Constitutional protections by convening a special Term and expediting review of a trial by military convention.

Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority or advisory precedent) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case.

Constitutional law experts say the decision, in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of panhandlers arrested for loitering by the New York Police Department, is not binding on state courts but should serve as a persuasive precedent to state judges considering similar challenges.

When a competitor was sued, he claimed that he was free to engage in his chosen trade; celebrating the principles of free enterprise, the court declared the monopoly invalid.12 This case would have been persuasive precedent for the butchers but for two hurdles that counsel had to negotiate.

Since such decisions are not binding on state courts, but are often very well-reasoned and useful, state courts cite federal interpretations of state law fairly often as persuasive precedent, although it is also fairly common for a state high court to reject a federal court's interpretation of its jurisprudence.

This sets a persuasive precedent, based on previous Supreme Court decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas, and by the application of the Lemon test, that creates a legal hurdle to teaching Intelligent Design in public school districts in other Federal court jurisdictions.

Within the federalist legal systems of several common-law countries, and most especially the United States, it is relatively common for the distinct lower-level judicial systems (e.g. state courts in the United States and Australia, provincial courts in Canada) to regard the decisions of other jurisdictions within the same country as persuasive precedent.