Foundation for Evidence - Stare Decisis - The Doctrine of Precedent
The term ‘stare decisis” is Latin for “to stand by things decided”. This is the doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation. [1] In New York, the doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has decided a legal issue, subsequent cases presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision. [2]
The Court of Appeals has stated that the term “stare decisis et non quieta movere” means to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points.[3] It has observed that doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has “decided a legal issue, subsequent appeals presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision. Its purpose is to promote efficiency and provide guidance and consistency in future cases by recognizing that legal questions, once settled, should not be reexamined every time they are presented. The doctrine also rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes.” [4]
Thus, the decisions of the Court of Appeals which have not been invalidated by changes in statute, decisional law, or constitutional requirements must be followed by all lower appellate courts, such as the appellate division and the appellate term[5], and by all courts of original jurisdiction. [6]
Where there is a conflict between the decisional law of the Court of Appeals and that of Federal Courts of Appeal, the ruling by the Court of Appeals should be followed by a lower New York court.[7] If there is a conflict between the decisions of the Court of Appeals and lower federal courts, such as the district court, the Appellate Division is bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[8]
The Appellate Division is a single statewide court divided into departments for administrative convenience and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in one department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division in that Department pronounces a contrary rule. Such considerations do not pertain to the Appellate Division. While an Appellate Division should accept the decisions of sister departments as persuasive it is free to reach a contrary result.[9] Trial courts within a Department must follow the determination of the Appellate Division in another Department until such time as the Appellate Division of that Department or the Court of Appeals passes on the question. Decisions of the Appellate Division are, in the absence of a Court of Appeals determination on the point in question, controlling and must be followed by the appellate term and by courts of original jurisdiction.[10]
Where a question has not yet been decided by an Appellate Division, inferior courts in that Department must follow the determinations of the Appellate Division in any other Department until such time as their own Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals passes upon the question.[11]
Where there is no applicable decision from the Court of Appeals or from the Appellate Division in the trial court's Department and the decisions from other Appellate Divisions are conflicting, the trial court is left to fashion its own decision, giving appropriate weight and consideration to the views expressed by the distinguished Justices of the Appellate Divisions and, where statutory interpretation is involved, developing a view which is consistent with the overall objective of the statute.[12]
A precedent is a decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues.[13] Not all cases are precedents. The language of any opinion must be confined to the facts before the court. No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided.[14]
Obiter dictum, also referred to as dicta is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive). [15]
Obiter dicta in an opinion does not become precedent. “A judicial opinion, like evidence, is only binding so far as it is relevant, and when it wanders from the point at issue it no longer has force as an official utterance.’[16] Expressions of the court on points not necessarily involved in a case are “obiter dicta” and do not become precedents. While they may be respected, they ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent proceeding when the same point is presented for decision. Statements and remarks by the courts concerning legal propositions not actually involved and determined in a case and not essential to the case are “obiter dicta” and do not become precedents.[17]
Dictum by the Court of Appeals is entitled to respectful consideration.[18]
A judgment of a trial court will not receive stare decisis treatment by an appellate court.[19]
Generally, unpublished decisions or opinions have no precedential value other than the persuasiveness of their reasoning· [20]
[1] Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009), stare decisis
[2] People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011 (1990); Battle v. State, 257 A.D.2d 745, 682 N.Y.S.2d 726 (3d Dep’t 1999).
[3] People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554, 878 N.E.2d 969 (2007).
[4] People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 337-38, 558 N.E.2d 1011 (1990) (citing Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 US 393, 407-408 [Brandeis, J., dissenting]; see also, People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 488-489; see generally, Wachtler, Stare Decisis and a Changing New York Court of Appeals, 59 St John's L Rev 445, 453).
[5] Warnock v. Duello, 30 A.D.3d 818, 816 N.Y.S.2d 595 (3d Dep’t 2006)
[6] Battle v. State, 257 A.D.2d 745, 682 N.Y.S.2d 726 (3d Dep’t 1999).
[7] People v. Brown, 235 A.D.2d 344, 653 N.Y.S.2d 544 (1st Dep’t 1997).
[8] People v. Jackson, 46 A.D.3d 1110, 847 N.Y.S.2d 743 (3d Dep’t 2007).
[9] Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2 Dept., 1984).
[10] Lee v. City of Rochester, 174 Misc. 2d 763, 663 N.Y.S.2d 738 (Sup 1997), aff’d, 254 A.D.2d 790, 677 N.Y.S.2d 848 (4th Dep’t 1998) (decisions by the appellate term must be followed by courts whose appeals lie to it). Juniper Walk Condominium v. Patriot Management Corp., 3 Misc. 3d 748, 774 N.Y.S.2d 672 (City Ct. 2004) (holding that the lower court was not bound by decisions of the appellate term in another department); Yellow Book of NY L.P. v. Dimilia, 188 Misc. 2d 489, 729 N.Y.S.2d 286 (Dist. Ct. 2001); 81 Franklin Co. v. Ginaccini, 149 Misc. 2d 124, 563 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1990).
[11] Stewart v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 181 A.D.2d 4, 584 N.Y.S.2d 886 (2d Dep’t 1992), order rev’d on other grounds, 81 N.Y.2d 203, 597 N.Y.S.2d 612, 613 N.E.2d 518 (1993); Lane v. Michael, 183 Misc. 2d 793, 706 N.Y.S.2d 827 (City Ct. 2000); Worldwide Ins. Co. v. U.S. Capital Ins. Co., 181 Misc. 2d 480, 693 N.Y.S.2d 901 (Sup 1999).
[12] Summit Const. Services Group, Inc. v. Act Abatement, LLC, 935 N.Y.S.2d 499 (Sup 2011).
[13] Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Ed.2014)
[14] Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 193 N.E. 897, 902, 266 N.Y. 71, 88 (1934)
[15] Black's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014)
[16] Campbell v. New York Evening Post, 218 N.Y.S. 446, 453, 219 A.D. 169, 177 (1 Dept. 1926)
[17] People v. Gravenhorst, 1942, 32 N.Y.S.2d 760.
[18] Toher v. Crounse, 1908, 57 Misc. 252, 107 N.Y.S. 990, affirmed 127 App.Div. 934, 111 N.Y.S. 1147
[19] Matter of Bull, 235 A.D.2d 722, 652 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 00317 (3d Dept.,1997) (…a judgment of a trial court, although binding upon the parties to the litigation and entitled to preclusive effect if not appealed will not receive stare decisis treatment by an appellate tribunal.) Samuels v. High Braes Refuge, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 1110, 778 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 05082 (4th Dept., 2004).
[20] Binimow, Precedential Effect of Unpublished Opinions, 2000 A.L.R.5th 17 (West Group). See, Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 126 F.Supp.2d 659, 669 fn. 14 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (applying New York law).
The term ‘stare decisis” is Latin for “to stand by things decided”. This is the doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation. [1] In New York, the doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has decided a legal issue, subsequent cases presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision. [2]
The Court of Appeals has stated that the term “stare decisis et non quieta movere” means to stand by things decided and not to disturb settled points.[3] It has observed that doctrine of stare decisis provides that once a court has “decided a legal issue, subsequent appeals presenting similar facts should be decided in conformity with the earlier decision. Its purpose is to promote efficiency and provide guidance and consistency in future cases by recognizing that legal questions, once settled, should not be reexamined every time they are presented. The doctrine also rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes.” [4]
Thus, the decisions of the Court of Appeals which have not been invalidated by changes in statute, decisional law, or constitutional requirements must be followed by all lower appellate courts, such as the appellate division and the appellate term[5], and by all courts of original jurisdiction. [6]
Where there is a conflict between the decisional law of the Court of Appeals and that of Federal Courts of Appeal, the ruling by the Court of Appeals should be followed by a lower New York court.[7] If there is a conflict between the decisions of the Court of Appeals and lower federal courts, such as the district court, the Appellate Division is bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeals.[8]
The Appellate Division is a single statewide court divided into departments for administrative convenience and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in one department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division in that Department pronounces a contrary rule. Such considerations do not pertain to the Appellate Division. While an Appellate Division should accept the decisions of sister departments as persuasive it is free to reach a contrary result.[9] Trial courts within a Department must follow the determination of the Appellate Division in another Department until such time as the Appellate Division of that Department or the Court of Appeals passes on the question. Decisions of the Appellate Division are, in the absence of a Court of Appeals determination on the point in question, controlling and must be followed by the appellate term and by courts of original jurisdiction.[10]
Where a question has not yet been decided by an Appellate Division, inferior courts in that Department must follow the determinations of the Appellate Division in any other Department until such time as their own Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals passes upon the question.[11]
Where there is no applicable decision from the Court of Appeals or from the Appellate Division in the trial court's Department and the decisions from other Appellate Divisions are conflicting, the trial court is left to fashion its own decision, giving appropriate weight and consideration to the views expressed by the distinguished Justices of the Appellate Divisions and, where statutory interpretation is involved, developing a view which is consistent with the overall objective of the statute.[12]
A precedent is a decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar facts or issues.[13] Not all cases are precedents. The language of any opinion must be confined to the facts before the court. No opinion is an authority beyond the point actually decided.[14]
Obiter dictum, also referred to as dicta is a judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive). [15]
Obiter dicta in an opinion does not become precedent. “A judicial opinion, like evidence, is only binding so far as it is relevant, and when it wanders from the point at issue it no longer has force as an official utterance.’[16] Expressions of the court on points not necessarily involved in a case are “obiter dicta” and do not become precedents. While they may be respected, they ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent proceeding when the same point is presented for decision. Statements and remarks by the courts concerning legal propositions not actually involved and determined in a case and not essential to the case are “obiter dicta” and do not become precedents.[17]
Dictum by the Court of Appeals is entitled to respectful consideration.[18]
A judgment of a trial court will not receive stare decisis treatment by an appellate court.[19]
Generally, unpublished decisions or opinions have no precedential value other than the persuasiveness of their reasoning· [20]
[1] Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009), stare decisis
[2] People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011 (1990); Battle v. State, 257 A.D.2d 745, 682 N.Y.S.2d 726 (3d Dep’t 1999).
[3] People v. Taylor, 9 N.Y.3d 129, 848 N.Y.S.2d 554, 878 N.E.2d 969 (2007).
[4] People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 337-38, 558 N.E.2d 1011 (1990) (citing Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 US 393, 407-408 [Brandeis, J., dissenting]; see also, People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 488-489; see generally, Wachtler, Stare Decisis and a Changing New York Court of Appeals, 59 St John's L Rev 445, 453).
[5] Warnock v. Duello, 30 A.D.3d 818, 816 N.Y.S.2d 595 (3d Dep’t 2006)
[6] Battle v. State, 257 A.D.2d 745, 682 N.Y.S.2d 726 (3d Dep’t 1999).
[7] People v. Brown, 235 A.D.2d 344, 653 N.Y.S.2d 544 (1st Dep’t 1997).
[8] People v. Jackson, 46 A.D.3d 1110, 847 N.Y.S.2d 743 (3d Dep’t 2007).
[9] Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2 Dept., 1984).
[10] Lee v. City of Rochester, 174 Misc. 2d 763, 663 N.Y.S.2d 738 (Sup 1997), aff’d, 254 A.D.2d 790, 677 N.Y.S.2d 848 (4th Dep’t 1998) (decisions by the appellate term must be followed by courts whose appeals lie to it). Juniper Walk Condominium v. Patriot Management Corp., 3 Misc. 3d 748, 774 N.Y.S.2d 672 (City Ct. 2004) (holding that the lower court was not bound by decisions of the appellate term in another department); Yellow Book of NY L.P. v. Dimilia, 188 Misc. 2d 489, 729 N.Y.S.2d 286 (Dist. Ct. 2001); 81 Franklin Co. v. Ginaccini, 149 Misc. 2d 124, 563 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1990).
[11] Stewart v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 181 A.D.2d 4, 584 N.Y.S.2d 886 (2d Dep’t 1992), order rev’d on other grounds, 81 N.Y.2d 203, 597 N.Y.S.2d 612, 613 N.E.2d 518 (1993); Lane v. Michael, 183 Misc. 2d 793, 706 N.Y.S.2d 827 (City Ct. 2000); Worldwide Ins. Co. v. U.S. Capital Ins. Co., 181 Misc. 2d 480, 693 N.Y.S.2d 901 (Sup 1999).
[12] Summit Const. Services Group, Inc. v. Act Abatement, LLC, 935 N.Y.S.2d 499 (Sup 2011).
[13] Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Ed.2014)
[14] Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States, 193 N.E. 897, 902, 266 N.Y. 71, 88 (1934)
[15] Black's Law Dictionary (10th Ed. 2014)
[16] Campbell v. New York Evening Post, 218 N.Y.S. 446, 453, 219 A.D. 169, 177 (1 Dept. 1926)
[17] People v. Gravenhorst, 1942, 32 N.Y.S.2d 760.
[18] Toher v. Crounse, 1908, 57 Misc. 252, 107 N.Y.S. 990, affirmed 127 App.Div. 934, 111 N.Y.S. 1147
[19] Matter of Bull, 235 A.D.2d 722, 652 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 00317 (3d Dept.,1997) (…a judgment of a trial court, although binding upon the parties to the litigation and entitled to preclusive effect if not appealed will not receive stare decisis treatment by an appellate tribunal.) Samuels v. High Braes Refuge, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 1110, 778 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 05082 (4th Dept., 2004).
[20] Binimow, Precedential Effect of Unpublished Opinions, 2000 A.L.R.5th 17 (West Group). See, Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 126 F.Supp.2d 659, 669 fn. 14 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (applying New York law).
The material on our website is from the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case. It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial. There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. publishes The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
|
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306. Telephone (954) 564-9883. email to:divorce@ix.netcom.com. Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation which is owned and operated by
Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. |
This website is published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters), and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.
|