3 ms·

Every decision sets a precedent that can be referred to by future parties as examples of how a similar case was handled previously, and presumably the folks dec

Every decision sets a precedent that can be referred to by future parties as examples of how a similar case was handled previously, and presumably the folks deciding these will want some minimal level of consistency between decisions. But sure, you're correct in the limited sense of that something like US Supreme Court stare decisis doctrine isn't built into the arbitration system, and so precedents are not binding or prima facie evidence that a current case should be decided the same way as a prior one.

denton-scratch 5y ago
Well, I don't presume to know how US law works. In the UK, precedents are set by the decisions of the High Court (civil) or Crown Court (criminal), and by higher courts. Lower courts don't set precendents I believe - IANAL.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  In the US there is a distinction of "binding" precedent and a "persuasive" precedent. A ruling that isn't binding can still be used in another case as evidence for a the validity of a line of reasoning, which can be persuasive, but the court is not obligated to give it the same standing as binding precedent. Even then, "binding" judicial precedent isn't binding in the strict sense. A court can still choose to disregard it, or hunt for a reason why it doesn't apply, but that gives the losing party much stronger grounds to get a case overturned on appeal. It's not a great look for a judge to have most of their decisions overturned though, so going against such precedents is usually not done without good reason, but it happens often enough to keep the appeals courts in business. The looser persuasive sense of precedent is what I meant: The arbitrators will not have to accord a prior decision any special status, but they will certainly want to have some level of consistency, and for tough decisions they will look back at how similar issues were handled, and complainants & respondents will be able to bring it to their attention as such. It wouldn't make much sense for an arbitrator to never look at prior cases for insight into colleague's reasoning on similar matters.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Oh, OK; persuasive precedent. Thing is, aren't arbitration proceedings generally cloaked in secrecy? Most arbitration amounts to contract re-negotiation "by other means", no? So if the proceedings are secret, it's hard to see how they can be used as a precedent. Are such proceedings less secret than I thought?

denton-scratch 5y ago

Well, I don't presume to know how US law works. In the UK, precedents are set by the decisions of the High Court (civil) or Crown Court (criminal), and by higher courts. Lower courts don't set precendents I believe - IANAL.

ineedasername 5y ago
In the US there is a distinction of "binding" precedent and a "persuasive" precedent. A ruling that isn't binding can still be used in another case as evidence for a the validity of a line of reasoning, which can be persuasive, but the court is not obligated to give it the same standing as binding precedent. Even then, "binding" judicial precedent isn't binding in the strict sense. A court can still choose to disregard it, or hunt for a reason why it doesn't apply, but that gives the losing party much stronger grounds to get a case overturned on appeal. It's not a great look for a judge to have most of their decisions overturned though, so going against such precedents is usually not done without good reason, but it happens often enough to keep the appeals courts in business. The looser persuasive sense of precedent is what I meant: The arbitrators will not have to accord a prior decision any special status, but they will certainly want to have some level of consistency, and for tough decisions they will look back at how similar issues were handled, and complainants & respondents will be able to bring it to their attention as such. It wouldn't make much sense for an arbitrator to never look at prior cases for insight into colleague's reasoning on similar matters.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Oh, OK; persuasive precedent. Thing is, aren't arbitration proceedings generally cloaked in secrecy? Most arbitration amounts to contract re-negotiation "by other means", no? So if the proceedings are secret, it's hard to see how they can be used as a precedent. Are such proceedings less secret than I thought?