(redirected from binding precedents)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.


Cardiology A trial–Prospective Randomized Ectopy Evaluation on Dobutamine on Natrecor®–nesiritide Therapy
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.


(pre′sĕ-dĕnt) [L. praecedere, to go before, precede]
In law, an action, ruling, or verdict that may be used as an example to be followed in the future.
Medical Dictionary, © 2009 Farlex and Partners

Patient discussion about precedent

Q. How to deal with stress before exams? I am a college student and get very stressed out before tests. Are there good methods to relieve stress?

A. Have you tried aromatherapy? the scents of the essential oils can activate the limbic system of your brain, helping to relieve stress and increase alertness before your exams.

This articles recommends a good custom blend of essential oils when using Aromatherapy for Stress:

Q. For those that had an epimacular membrane removed, how long was it before your eye healed? How was your vision afterwards? Do you now require or benefit from glasses?

A. Epimacular membrane removal can be associated with a variety of ocular conditions and therefore the healing process varies tremendously depending on the underlying pathology. Furthermore, this condition may recur.

Q. what genetic exams should i do during and before pregnancy to secure the unborn child?

A. there is a wide variety of pre-gestational genetic testsing that can be done, for several inherited diseases, depending on your origin. You have to consult your gynecologist in order to know exactly what can be tested nowadays and whether or not there is a need.

More discussions about precedent
This content is provided by iMedix and is subject to iMedix Terms. The Questions and Answers are not endorsed or recommended and are made available by patients, not doctors.
References in periodicals archive ?
The procedures that create binding precedents come from repetitive or mass demand legal relationships and, this way, someone could think that interventions would confuse the process before the possibility of a big amount of people interfering in these procedures.
401-402) when they say this type of manifestation is one more case of the amicus curiae intervention, and it aims the enlargement, within the social context, of the discussion over the content of the binding precedent in order to confer a bigger democratic legitimacy to the creation of norms by the Supreme Court.
As a result, in the absence of binding precedent, judges will be more likely to "follow" the reasoning of high-quality opinions and more likely to criticize or distinguish the reasoning of low-quality opinions.
hinder the development of binding precedent in bankruptcy because
of bankruptcy law to establish the proper binding precedent.
Do the goals of impartiality, accountability, and non-arbitrariness demand that a court be allowed to treat a written determination as a binding precedent if it so wishes?
First, there is the obvious confusion in the language of the provision: we do not know if precedent for that purpose includes either category of non-binding precedent as well as binding precedent. (160) Nor do we know if the section should apply to judges, lawyers, or both.
The amended rule provides that "unpublished memorandum opinions of any court or agency," while "not binding precedents" and "not favored for citation," nonetheless "may be cited if they have persuasive value with respect to a material issue not addressed in a published opinion of a Kansas appellate court and they would assist the court in its disposition." Id.
Effective in December 2002, that court dropped its rule that allowed citation of unpublished opinions only in "related cases." (3) The First Circuit adopted instead a rule cautioning that "[c]itation of an unpublished opinion of this court is disfavored," but allowing such citation "if (1) the party believes that the opinion persuasively addresses a material issue in the appeal; and (2) there is no published opinion from this court that adequately addresses the issue." (4) Further, "[t]he court will consider such opinions for their persuasive value but not as binding precedent." (5)
Judge Kozinski in Hart, while rejecting the claim that unpublished opinions must be binding precedents, goes further and upholds the Ninth Circuit's rule banning citation of those opinions.
The case against no-citation rules asks not that unpublished opinions be regarded as binding precedents, or as precedents at all in the normative, stare decisis sense.
7, at 142 (available at ("The court generally does not cite to its 'unpublished' opinions because they are not binding precedent.").