precedential cases

Why (and how) does a court determine a case to be precedential?

If the facts are similar and you are in a common law juridiction then the past case can be used as a tool to decide how to handle the current case.

precedent - a system of jurisprudence based on judicial precedents rather than statutory laws; "common law originated in the unwritten laws of England and was later applied in the United States"

Sorry, but I was unclear.

I was wondering what a court considers in deciding whether to make its present case precedential or not. That is, if I'm deciding case XYZ, what would I consider before I made it precedential?

Just curious.

I guess it's the appellate courts that can determine whether its cases are precedential or not. Can the lower trial courts do that?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, but I was unclear.

I was wondering what a court considers in deciding whether to make its present case precedential or not. That is, if I'm deciding case XYZ, what would I consider before I made it precedential?

Just curious.

Every case can serve as precedent for others if the facts are similar. The judge does not select which ones.

But the CAFC lists various decided cases as precedential or non-precedential.
<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/dailylog.html>

If you open a non-precedential case on that page,
eg "2008/7/24 07-1445.pdf PTO In Re Stauffer N"

at the top of the decision, there is this: "Note: This disposition is nonprecedential."

I tried another cct by googling "7th cct appeal precedential." The first item returned (from 3rc cct was marked "Precedential" at the top. That case is: No. 03-4714 TSAI-YI YANG Appellant v. FU-CHIANG TSUI.