Common law is based on the concept of precedence, which requires judges to decide a case based on prior rulings, or, at a minimum, consider the reasoning of prior judges when deciding a case with similar facts. The constraints that precedence imposes on a judge depend on court hierarchy, case relevance, and jurisdiction. As outlined by the Indiana Court System, “When a decision is made by a higher court, the lower courts must follow it. Once a case is decided, it establishes a precedent, or a judicial decision that should be followed when a similar case comes to court. To serve as precedent for a pending case, a prior decision must have almost the same question of law and almost the same facts. If the precedent is from another area, such as another state’s Supreme Court, it can be considered, but it does not have to be followed.” In this way, new decisions can become a legal precedent. A binding precedent is referred to by the Latin phrase stare decisis or “let the decision stand.”

The upside of this doctrine of precedence is predictability. Melbourne Law School professor Matthew Harding summarizes the logic of this practice: “The moral value of the doctrine of precedent is in the way it serves the political ideal of the rule of law; according to that ideal, institutions of the state, like courts, should strive to ensure that the law is developed and applied in a consistent and predictable manner, so that citizens may order their affairs with confidence as to their rights and duties.”^[3]