What is Stare Decisis?
Finding Judicial Precedent on Point Will Help You Win Your Case
You have probably heard the saying, “Consistency is the key.”
But did you know that this mantra, which usually refers to developing habits to obtain athletic or business success or building personal relationships, also applies to the American legal system and your lawsuit?
Indeed, it does. However, the law uses a different name for consistency and predictability: the doctrine of stare decisis.
Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided.” It is the short version of the Latin phrase “stare decisis et non quieta movere,” which means to stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm.”
Under stare decisis, a court must follow or distinguish its earlier judicial decisions (or those of a higher court) on specific points of law when those points are relevant to the pending litigation. This body of past judicial opinions is known as legal precedents or caselaw.
Please keep reading to learn more about stare decisis, the law of judicial precedent, and why it matters to your lawsuit. The judge presiding over your lawsuit will likely ask what authorities support your positions during pretrial motions hearings, settlement conferences, and the bench or jury trial. You will likely win your case if you can argue that the judge will follow precedent by ruling in your favor and citing the case law on point in your written legal briefs (“papers”) or during oral arguments.
Then complete this form or call (804) 251-1620 if you need help with your case.
Takeaway: Why You Should Care About Stare Decisis and Judicial Precedents
Read this section if you only have one minute to learn about stare decisis and the law of judicial precedent.
The law is full of antiquated terms and Latin phrases.
Many of these words and phrases will not apply to your case.
But stare decisis will. The law of judicial precedent applies to all criminal and civil litigation.
Law review articles and legal academia often discuss the pros and cons of stare decisis.
Although these debates are interesting, the most crucial thing for you to know about stare decisis is that if you find binding judicial precedent, you can force the judge assigned to your case to rule in your favor if you present the correct facts or risk reversal by an appellate court.
You can count on your opponent doing the same thing – researching precedents to find caselaw that supports its position.
Therefore, you should also look for unfavorable precedent and then find ways to distinguish your case so that you win at trial.
What Exactly is a Judicial Precedent?
You have likely heard the term precedent outside of litigation. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines it as “an earlier occurrence of something similar.”
The law uses a similar definition. In litigation, a judicial precedent is a decided case that you (or the court) can use as a basis for determining your lawsuit involving similar facts or questions of law.
A case’s holding (result) is not the only part of a past decision that may apply to your case under stare decisis.
Indeed, stare decisis also applies to a case’s ratio decidendi – the parts of the judicial opinions necessary to reach the result.
Why Do We Follow the Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Look to Judicial Precedents?
Stare decisis aims to treat cases with similar facts or legal questions the same.
Federal and state courts often explain why stare decisis is a cornerstone of American law.
For example, in one case, the United States Supreme Court held that stare decisis is preferred “because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Indeed, the Court said that following judicial precedent “is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right.”
And the Virginia Supreme Court has said that in Virginia, “the doctrine of stare decisis is more than a mere cliche. That doctrine plays a significant role in the orderly administration of justice by assuring consistent, predictable, and balanced application of legal principles.”
Following judicial precedent furthers the rule of law in America by promoting equal treatment under the law and establishing fair and predictable processes to resolve disputes. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, “strict rules and precedents” must bind courts to avoid arbitrary decisions by judges.
Three Tips for Using Stare Decisis to Win Your Lawsuit
Knowing how judicial precedent treats plaintiffs and defendants in situations like yours is essential to recovering damages for personal injury or workers compensation benefits.
These three tips can help you use stare decisis principles to win your case
Tip #1: Research Caselaw to Find Vertical Precedents from Higher Courts
Knowing the hierarchy of the court system is critical to using stare decisis to win your case.
Judicial precedent is either vertical or horizontal.
Vertical precedents are caselaw from higher courts in the same jurisdiction.
The decisions of higher courts govern litigation pending in the lower courts.
For example, in state courts in Virginia, precedents from the Supreme Court of Virginia bind the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The caselaw from the Court of Appeals of Virginia binds all trial courts and the Workers Compensation Commission.
Similarly, in federal courts, precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court bind the circuit courts of appeals, and caselaw from these appellate courts bind federal district courts.
A third category of vertical precedents exists. U.S. Supreme Court opinions may also govern state court decisions, particularly in criminal cases.
Therefore, the best strategy to use stare decisis to win your personal injury lawsuit or workers compensation case is to find a supportive precedent from your state’s court of last resort or other appellate courts.
Tip #2: If You Cannot Find Vertical Precedent, Research Horizontal Precedents from the Same Court
A horizontal precedent is a past decision from the same court deciding the pending litigation.
Generally, a court must adhere to its past decisions and reaffirm its rulings unless it finds its former reasoning flawed or another compelling reason to overrule itself.
For example, the Court of Appeals of Virginia hears appeals using panels of three judges.
Under the interpanel accord doctrine, one panel’s decision “becomes a predicate for the application of the doctrine of stare decisis” in cases decided by a different panel. Only decisions from the Court of Appeals sitting en banc or by the Virginia Supreme Court can overrule a panel decision.
Tip #3: Use Pretrial Discovery to Develop Facts that Fit Your Case Within Judicial Precedents
If you find caselaw on point, you should use pretrial discovery to develop facts that match those in the decided case.
Then use witness testimony and the documents produced during your presentation in the legal briefs, during the workers comp hearing, or at trial to show why your case fits the legal precedents you found.
Three Tips for Dealing with Unfavorable Precedents
Unfortunately, stare decisis may sink your case. Your research may find caselaw that reaches the opposite of the decision you want.
Here are three ways to deal with unfavorable precedents.
Tip #1: Distinguish Your Opponent’s Authorities
Once you find out about caselaw that harms your position and seems directly on point, you should develop and present facts to show why your case differs.
The more factual dissimilarities you can show, the more likely the judge will find your opponent’s precedent does not apply to your case or that your authorities control the outcome.
Tip #2: Argue that Your Opponent Interprets the Precedent’s Ratio Decidendi Incorrectly
As we discussed earlier in this article, a judicial opinion’s ratio decidendi is the set of facts or policy reasoning that led to the decision. All other parts of the opinion are dicta that later courts do not have to follow.
You can weaken your opponent’s precedents by arguing that the courts decided the cases relied on for reasons inapplicable to your case. Therefore, your opponent’s offered precedents are not controlling authority.
Tip #3: Argue that it is Time to Change the Rule
Although uncommon, sometimes a court will change its mind and overrule precedent.
For example, the Virginia Workers Compensation Commission recently overturned a precedent governing who pays for a permanent impairment rating to obtain permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. An injured employee used to have to pay for these evaluations, but now the insurer does.
Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine this year. In doing so, the court ended the practice of deferring to government agencies’ interpretations of their regulations.
If you must go this route, you should look for dissenting or concurring opinions in past decisions that support your policy argument. Today’s dissenting or concurring opinions often become tomorrow’s precedent.
Use the Doctrine of Stare Decisis to Win Your Case
Understanding how to argue precedent and finding caselaw on point from thousands of written decisions is a complex task that requires experience, knowledge, and skill. Our firm has the expertise to handle this for you.
You can try to find the applicable precedent on your own – and hope that you are correct.
Or you can contact us for help. Our law firm stays current on legal precedents and is regularly involved in cases that establish the legal principles that other attorneys rely on. Indeed, our wins have been discussed at recent workers compensation conferences and published in case reports.
- Appellate Decision Shows the Risk of Ignoring VWC Orders - February 12, 2025
- How Long Does It Take to Get to Your Disability Hearing? - February 11, 2025
- Skip Bayless, Fox Sports Exec Accused of Sexual Misconduct - January 6, 2025
