3 ms·
> Hence it is very much like a precedent in the common-law sense - except one that isn't open to interpretation by other courts. I'm sorry, I don't follow this
by pmccool 16y ago
> Hence it is very much like a precedent in the common-law sense - except one that isn't open to interpretation by other courts.
I'm sorry, I don't follow this at all. I though it would be like a common-law precedent, but persuasive rather than binding with respect to future decisions?
My reasoning was that it's a different situation because civil law courts aren't absolutely obliged to follow past decisions.
- maxniederhofer 16y agoSorry, that was confusing indeed. It's late/early here. Persuasive, not binding is correct. But in practice the authority of the court is such that most lesser courts will honor it. I was also wrong on the "highest appeals court" count - if the issue is of constitutional interest, there is the Federal Constitutional Court.