from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- n. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
- n. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
- n. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.
- adj. Preceding.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. An act in the past which may be used as an example to help decide the outcome of similar instances in the future.
- n. A decided case which is cited or used as an example to justify a judgment in a subsequent case.
- n. The aforementioned (thing).
- n. The previous version.
- adj. Happening or taking place earlier in time; previous or preceding.
- v. To provide precedents for.
- v. To be a precedent for.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- adj. Going before; anterior; preceding; antecedent.
- n. Something done or said that may serve as an example to authorize a subsequent act of the same kind; an authoritative example.
- n. A preceding circumstance or condition; an antecedent; hence, a prognostic; a token; a sign.
- n. A rough draught of a writing which precedes a finished copy.
- n. 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 The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- (prē˙-sē′ dent). Preceding; going before in the order of time; antecedent; anterior; previous; former.
- n. (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.
- n. Specifically, in law: A judicial decision, interlocutory or final, which serves as a rule for future determinations in similar or analogous cases.
- n. A form of proceeding or of an instrument followed or deemed worthy to be followed as a pattern in similar or analogous cases.
- n. A custom, habit, or rule established; previous example or usage.
- n. A presage; sign; indication.
- n. An original, as the original draft of a writing.
- n. Synonyms Pattern, Model, etc. See example.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time
- n. a subject mentioned earlier (preceding in time)
- adj. preceding in time, order, or significance
- n. (civil law) a law established by following earlier judicial decisions
- n. a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws
But surely to Justice Breyer, and Souter and Ginsburg, who joined him, the precedent is the substance:
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.
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.
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.
Supreme Court precedent is actually pretty clear, even in the Nevada case, the cops needed at least an reasonable pretext for asking for ID.
Centuries of contrary precedent is certainly a “showing to contrary”.
Supreme Court precedent is actually pretty clear, even in the Nevada case, the cops needed at least an reasonable pretext for asking forID.
Also, unlike every other court in the country, no precedent is binding on the U.S.
But misconstruing precedent is what makes “the law” such a flexible weapon.
As Reza Aslan has pointed out in various interviews in the last few days, the Iranian precedent is that a movement feeds off martyrdom.