What is the difference between binding and persuasive precedent, and how does it affect decisions?

• A. Binding precedents come from lower courts and must be followed
• B. Binding precedents come from higher courts and must be followed; persuasive precedents come from lower or other jurisdictions or obiter dicta
• C. All precedents are equally persuasive
• D. No precedents are binding

Answer: (B)

Binding precedents are rules established by higher courts in the same jurisdiction that must be followed by lower courts. Persuasive precedents are not obligatory; they come from lower courts, other jurisdictions, or from non-binding remarks in a judgment (obiter dicta) and may influence a decision, but they don’t have to be followed.

This matters in practice because a judge must apply the binding rule to decide the case, ensuring consistency and predictability across similar disputes. Persuasive authorities can guide reasoning and push thinking in a particular direction, but the judge is free to depart from them if they find them less convincing or if the binding authority supports a different outcome after distinguishing the facts. If a higher court later overrules the binding rule, or if the facts are sufficiently distinguished, the decision can change accordingly.