Non-precedential

In legal contexts, 'non-precedential' describes a judicial decision or ruling that, while possibly binding on the immediate parties involved, does not establish a binding legal principle or rule of law that must be followed in future similar cases by other courts within the same jurisdiction. These decisions typically offer guidance or interpretation, but are not considered authoritative legal precedents. Their significance may be limited, depending on local rules and the specific circumstances of the case. They are often unpublished and are not considered legal precedents.

Non-precedential meaning with examples

• The appeals court ruled the lower court's judgment in the employment dispute was non-precedential, meaning while binding on the parties, it would not impact future decisions on similar issues. The decision offered specific context, but attorneys will research precedents to advise future clients rather than this ruling as guidance.
• The court's summary judgment was marked as non-precedential. Attorneys who worked on the case learned specific lessons that would influence their practices going forward, but those principles were not officially made precedential, and therefore are not available as legal precedents.
• The judge explained that her decision on the evidentiary matter was non-precedential, providing an explanation of her rationale for the immediate case but clarifying that her reasoning did not create a new legal test or rule of law for this specific class of case and she was bound by existing precedents.
• When a settlement conference concluded, the judge wrote a decision, which had a non-precedential label. It was useful for the specific dispute but attorneys will focus on how it affected the underlying parties. Therefore, the decision provided limited value as legal guidance for the practice of law.
• After a complicated regulatory matter, the administrative law judge issued a non-precedential order addressing the specifics of the case, but it was clarified it was only binding in the case and the decision was not binding on the regulatory authority in the future. It did not set a standard for review.