from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- noun An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
- noun Law A judicial decision that is binding on other equal or lower courts in the same jurisdiction as to its conclusion on a point of law, and may also be persuasive to courts in other jurisdictions, in subsequent cases involving sufficiently similar facts.
- noun Convention or custom arising from long practice.
- adjective Preceding.
from The Century Dictionary.
- (prē˙-sē′ dent). Preceding; going before in the order of time; antecedent; anterior; previous; former.
- noun (pres′ ē˙-dent). A preceding action or circumstance which may serve as a pattern or example in subsequent cases; an antecedent instance which creates a rule for following cases; a model instance.
- noun Specifically, in law: A judicial decision, interlocutory or final, which serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases.
- noun A form of proceeding or of an instrument followed or deemed worthy to be followed as a pattern in similar or analogous cases.
- noun A custom, habit, or rule established; previous example or usage.
- noun A presage; sign; indication.
- noun An original, as the original draft of a writing.
- noun Synonyms Pattern, Model, etc. See
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
- adjective Going before; anterior; preceding; antecedent.
- adjective (Law) a condition which precede the vesting of an estate, or the accruing of a right.
- noun Something done or said that may serve as an example to authorize a subsequent act of the same kind; an authoritative example.
- noun obsolete A preceding circumstance or condition; an antecedent; hence, a prognostic; a token; a sign.
- noun obsolete A rough draught of a writing which precedes a finished copy.
- noun (Law) A judicial decision which serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases; an authority to be followed in courts of justice; forms of proceeding to be followed in similar cases.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- noun An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future.
- noun law A decided case which is cited or used as an example to justify a judgment in a subsequent case.
- noun obsolete, with definite article The
- noun The previous version.
- adjective Happening or taking place earlier in time;
- verb transitive, law To provide precedents for.
- verb transitive, law To be a precedent for.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- noun an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time
- noun a subject mentioned earlier (preceding in time)
- adjective preceding in time, order, or significance
- noun (civil law) a law established by following earlier judicial decisions
- noun a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
Saying that this won't be a precedent is a little like the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore saying that its decision was limited to the specific facts of that case.
But surely to Justice Breyer, and Souter and Ginsburg, who joined him, the precedent is the substance:
But misconstruing precedent is what makes “the law” such a flexible weapon.
Supreme Court precedent is actually pretty clear, even in the Nevada case, the cops needed at least an reasonable pretext for asking for ID.
As Reza Aslan has pointed out in various interviews in the last few days, the Iranian precedent is that a movement feeds off martyrdom.
Also, unlike every other court in the country, no precedent is binding on the U.S.
If judges find this argument (in the greatly eleborated form that will eventually be presented to the courts) to be persuasive, then the Supreme Court precedent is very clear.
Centuries of contrary precedent is certainly a “showing to contrary”.
I think it makes much more sense to say that a precedent is being “applied” when there is no relevant difference that makes the rule of law announced in the precedent inapplicable.
Supreme Court precedent is actually pretty clear, even in the Nevada case, the cops needed at least an reasonable pretext for asking forID.