Ratio Decidendi

[Latin, The ground or reason of decision.] The legal principle upon which the decision in a specific case is founded.
The ratio decidendi is also known as the rationale for a decision. Latin, literally the reason behind the decision
- the rule of law on which a judicial decision is based.
-they are the principles a judge will use when making his judgment, and afterwards they will create a binding
precedent which means that courts lower in the hierarchy will have to follow the same decision if a case with facts
sufficiently similar is presented to them.
--
Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the
decision." The ratio decidendi is "[t]he point in a case which determines the judgment"[1] or "the principle which the
case establishes."[2]

In other words, ratio decidendi is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a
judgment on which the outcome of the case depends.
It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to compose the
rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of
lower and later jurisdictionthrough the doctrine of stare decisis. Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a
court of co-ordinate jurisdictionhowever, out of interests of judicial comity, they generally try to follow co-ordinate
rationes.
The process of determining the ratio decidendi is a correctly thought analysis of what the court actually decided
essentially, based on the legal points about which the parties in the case actually fought. All other statements about
the law in the text of a court opinionall pronouncements that do not form a part of the court's rulings on the issues
actually decided in that particular case (whether they are correct statements of law or not)are obiter dicta, and are
not rules for which that particular case stands.

Synopsis
The ratio decidendi is one of the most powerful tools available to a lawyer. With a proper understanding of the ratio of
a precedent, the advocate can in effect force a lower court to come to a decision which that court may otherwise be
unwilling to make, considering the facts of the case.
The search for the ratio of a case is a process of elucidation; one searches the judgment for the abstract principles of
law which have led to the decision and which have been applied to the facts before the court. As an example, the
ratio in Donoghue v. Stevenson would be that a person owes a duty of care to those who he can reasonably foresee
will be affected by his actions.
All decisions are, in the common law system, decisions on the law as applied to the facts of the case. Academic or
theoretical points of law are not usually determined. Occasionally, a court is faced with an issue of such
overwhelming public importance that the court will pronounce upon it without deciding it. Such a pronouncement will
not amount to a binding precedent, but is instead called an obiter dictum.
Ratio decidendi also involves the holding of a particular case, thereby allowing future cases to build upon such cases
by citing precedent. However, not all holdings are given equal merit; factors that can strengthen or weaken the
strength of the holding include:
Rank of the court (Supreme Court versus an appellate court).
Number of issues decided in the case (multiple issues may result in so called, multi-legged holdings)
Authority or respect of the judge(s)
Number of concurring and dissenting judges
New applicable statutes
Similarity of the environment as opposed to the age of the holding.
The ability to isolate the abstract principle of law in the vehemently[clarification needed] pragmatic application of that
abstraction to the facts of a case is one of the most highly prized legal skills in the common law system. The lawyer is
searching for the principles which underlined and underlay the court's decision.

Challenges
The difficulty in the search for the ratio becomes acute when, as is never the case in the decisions of the Court of
Appeal or the House of Lords, more than one judgment is promulgated. A dissenting judgment on the point is not
binding, and cannot be the ratio. However, one will sometimes find decisions in which, for example, five judges are
sitting the House of Lords, all of whom purport to agree with one another but in each of whose opinions one is able to
discern subtly different ratios. An example is the case of Kay v. Lambeth LBC, on which a panel of seven of their
Lordships sat, and from whose opinions emerged a number of competing ratios, some made express by their
Lordships and others implicit in the decision.
Another problem may arise in older cases where the ratio and obiter are not explicitly separated, as they are today. In
such a case, it may be difficult to locate the ratio, and on occasion, the courts have been unable to do so.
Such interpretative ambiguity is inevitable in any word-bound system. Codification of the law, such as has occurred in
many systems based on Roman law, may assist to some extent in clarification of principle, but is considered by some
common lawyers anathema to the robust, pragmatic and fact-bound system of English law.
--
Note that the ratio decidendi may be expressed in wide or narrow terms.
A wide ratio lays down a general principle that can apply to a variety of factual situations.
A narrow ratio is restricted more to the specificity of the facts in the case in which it was relied upon.
--
Obiter Dictum
-obiter dictum in Latin means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion,
but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered
persuasive).
-Obiter dicta is another latin maxim meaning "other things said", it is very similar to ratio decidendi except it does not
form a binding precedent, instead it becomes what is known as a persuasive precedent and a judge in a later case
does not have to follow it, however they may decide to consider it when making their decision.
-[Latin, By the way.] Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case. A remark made or opinion
expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, "by the way", that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly
upon the question before the court or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or
introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.
--
1. Law An opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not
binding. Also called dictum.
2. An incidental remark or observation; a passing comment.
-an observation by a judge on some point of law not directly in issue in the case before him and thus neither requiring
his decision nor serving as a precedent, but nevertheless of persuasive authority
2. any comment, remark, or observation made in passing
--
Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta or obiter) is Latin for a statement "said in passing".
An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion,
does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to,
words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not
the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare
decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England
and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.
An example of an instance where a court opinion may include obiter dicta is where a court rules that it lacks
jurisdiction to hear a case or dismisses the case on a technicality. If the court in such a case offers opinions on the
merits of the case, such opinions may constitute obiter dicta. Less clear-cut instances of obiter dicta occur where a
judge makes a side comment in an opinion to provide context for other parts of the opinion, or makes a thorough
exploration of a relevant area of law. Another example would be where the judge, in explaining his or her ruling,
provides a hypothetical set of facts and explains how he or she believes the law would apply to those facts.
In reaching decisions, courts sometimes quote passages of obiter dicta found in the texts of the opinions from prior
cases, with or without acknowledging the quoted passage's status as obiter dicta. A quoted passage of obiter dicta
may become part of the holding or ruling in a subsequent case, depending on what the latter court actually decided
and how that court treated the principle embodied in the quoted passage.
Obiter dicta can be influential. One example in United States Supreme Court history is the 1886 case Santa Clara
County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. A passing remark from Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, recorded by the court
reporter before oral argument, now forms the basis for the doctrine that juristic persons are entitled to protection
under the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether or not Chief Justice Waite's remark constitutes binding precedent is
arguable, but subsequent rulings treat it as such.
In other instances, obiter dicta can suggest an interpretation of law that has no bearing on the case at hand but might
be useful in future cases. The most notable instance of such an occurrence is the history of the famous Footnote 4 to
United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), which while rejecting use of the Due Process Clause to block most
legislation suggested that the clause might be applied to strike down legislation dealing with questions of
"fundamental right." This obiter dictum is generally considered to have led to the doctrine of strict scrutiny (and
subsequently intermediate scrutiny) in racial-, religious-, and sexual-discrimination cases, first articulated in
Korematsu v. United States (1944).
The arguments and reasoning of a dissenting opinion also constitute obiter dicta. These, however, might also be cited
should a court determine that its previous decision was in error, as when the United States Supreme Court cited
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s dissent in Hammer v. Dagenhart when it overturned Hammer in United States v.
Darby Lumber Co.
a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the
authority of the person making it.
--
Precedent
Precedent refers to something that has happened or that was done in the past, and that serves as a model for future
conduct. In the case of the ratio decidendi, the precedent set is the principle or reasoning that has been established
in a single case that serves as an example or rule to be followed in subsequent cases
--
Basically, it is the principle of law on which the decision of a case was based.
This part of the decision is binding on lower courts or on the decision-making court itself in future cases.
--
precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive
for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in
common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes,
and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines
"precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter
referred to in deciding similar cases."[1] common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory
law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and regulatory law (regulations promulgated by executive
branch agencies).

Stare decisis
Latin, to stand by decided matters, to stand by that which is decided
--
(Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /stri dsass) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedent
established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis
et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[2] In a legal context, this is understood
to mean that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters
--
a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the
ordinary principles of justice
--
The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a
precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon,
for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many
hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
--
In common law, the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to ensure certainty,
consistency, and stability in the administration of justice. Since no court decision can have universal application, the
courts, in practice, must often decide that a previous decision does not apply to a particular case even though the
facts and issues appear to be closely similar. A strict application of stare decisis may lead to rigidity and to legal
hairsplitting, whereas too much flexibility may result in uncertainty.

Res judicata
- a matter finally decided on its merits by a court having competent jurisdiction and not subject to litigation again
between the same parties
-A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as
to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.
--
Literally, it means a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment.
In res judicata, the judgment in the first action is considered conclusive as to every matter offered and received
therein, as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose, and all other matters that
could have been adjudged therein. Res judicata is an absolute bar to a subsequent action for the same cause; and its
requisites are: (a) the former judgment or order must be final; (b) the judgment or order must be one on the merits; (c)
it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; (d) there must be
between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action
--
Res judicata or res iudicata (RJ), also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and
may refer to two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final
judgment and is no longer subject to appeal;[1] and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation
of such cases between the same parties, which is different between the two legal systems. In this latter usage, the
term is synonymous with "preclusion".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court
will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.[2]
The legal concept of res judicata arose as a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly
finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not
merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying
judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury.

In common law

The principle of res judicata may be used either by a judge or a defendant.
Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is
identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the
first judgment.
A defendant in a lawsuit may use res judicata as defense. The general rule is that a plaintiff who prosecuted an action
against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is not able to initiate another action versus the same
defendant where:
the claim is based on the same transaction that was at issue in the first action;
the plaintiff seeks a different remedy, or further remedy, than what was obtained in the first action;
the claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action.[3]
Once a bankruptcy plan is confirmed in court action, the plan is binding on all parties involved. Any question
regarding the plan which could have been raised may be barred by res judicata.[4]
The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no fact having been tried by a jury shall be
otherwise re-examinable in any court of the United States or of any state than according to the rules of law.
For res judicata to be binding, several factors must be met:
identity in the thing at suit;
identity of the cause at suit;
identity of the parties to the action;
identity in the designation of the parties involved;
whether the judgment was final;
whether the parties were given full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Regarding designation of the parties involved, a person may be involved in an action while filling a given office (e.g.
as the agent of another), and may subsequently initiate the same action in a differing capacity (e.g. as his own
agent). In that case res judicata would not be available as a defense unless the defendant could show that the
differing designations were not legitimate and sufficient.

[edit]Scope
Res judicata includes two related concepts: claim preclusion and issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel or
issue estoppel), though sometimes res judicata is used more narrowly to mean only claim preclusion.
Claim preclusion bars a suit from being brought again on an event which was the subject of a previous legal cause of
action that has already been finally decided between the parties or those in privity with a party.
Issue preclusion bars the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a
judge or jury as part of an earlier case.
It is often difficult to determine which, if either, of these concepts apply to later lawsuits that are seemingly related,
because many causes of action can apply to the same factual situation and vice versa. The scope of an earlier
judgment is probably the most difficult question that judges must resolve in applying res judicata. Sometimes merely
part of the action will be affected. For example, a single claim may be struck from a complaint, or a single factual
issue may be removed from reconsideration in the new trial.

[edit]Rationale
Res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests. Its primary purpose is to assure an efficient
judicial system. [5]
Justice Stewart explained the need for this legal precept as follows:
Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral
estoppel (issue preclusion). Under RJ, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from re-
litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has
decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit
on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court and other courts have often recognized,
res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial
resources, and by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on a judication.[6]

[edit]Exceptions to application
Res judicata does not restrict the appeals process, which is considered a linear extension of the same lawsuit as the
suit travels up (and back down) the appellate court ladder. Appeals are considered the appropriate manner by which
to challenge a judgment rather than trying to start a new trial. Once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, res
judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law. In states that permit a judgment to be renewed, a lawsuit
to renew the judgment would not be barred by res judicata, however in states that do not permit renewal by action (as
opposed to renewal by scire facias or by motion), such an action would be rejected by the courts as vexatious.
There are limited exceptions to res judicata that allow a party to attack the validity of the original judgment, even
outside of appeals. These exceptionsusually called collateral attacksare typically based on procedural or
jurisdictional issues, based not on the wisdom of the earlier court's decision but its authority or on the competence of
the earlier court to issue that decision. A collateral attack is more likely to be available (and to succeed) in judicial
systems with multiple jurisdictions, such as under federal governments, or when a domestic court is asked to enforce
or recognize the judgment of a foreign court.
In addition, in matters involving due process, cases that appear to be res judicata may be re-litigated. An example
would be the establishment of a right to counsel. People who have had liberty taken away (i.e., imprisoned) may be
allowed to be re-tried with a counselor as a matter of fairness.
RJ may not apply in cases involving the England reservation. If a litigant files suit in federal court, and that court stays
proceedings to allow a state court to consider the questions of state law, the litigant may inform the state court that he
reserves any federal-law issues in the action for federal court. If he makes such a reservation, RJ would not bar him
from returning the case to federal court at conclusion of action in state court.[7]
RJ may be avoided if claimant was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided by a state court.
He could file suit in a federal court to challenge the adequacy of the state's procedures. In that case the federal suit
would be against the state and not against the defendant in the first suit.[3]
RJ may not apply if consent (or tacit agreement) is justification for splitting a claim. If plaintiff splits a claim in the
course of a suit for special or justifiable reasons for doing so, a judgment in that action may not have the usual
consequence of extinguishing the entire claim.

[edit]Failure to apply
When a subsequent court fails to apply res judicata and renders a contradictory verdict on the same claim or issue, if
a third court is faced with the same case, it will likely apply a "last in time" rule, giving effect only to the later judgment,
even though the result came out differently the second time. This situation is not unheard of, as it is typically the
responsibility of the parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge's attention, and the judge must decide how
broadly to apply it, or whether to recognize it in the first place. See Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc., 754
F.2d 1524, 1529-30 (9th Cir. 1985).

In civil law
The doctrine of res judicata in nations that have a civil law legal system is much narrower in scope than in common
law nations.
In order for a second suit to be dismissed on a motion of res judicata in a civilian jurisdiction, the trial must be
identical to the first trial in the following manner: (1) identical parties, (2) identical theories of recovery, and (3)
identical demands in both trials. In other words, the issue preclusion or collateral estoppel found in the common law
doctrine of res iudicata is not present in the civilian doctrine. In addition if all else is equal between the two cases,
minus the relief sought, there will be no dismissal based on res judicata in a civil law jurisdiction.
While most civilian jurisdictions have slightly broadened the doctrine through multiple exceptions to these three
requirements, there is no consensus on which exceptions ought to be allowed.
Note: Louisiana (USA), a civil law jurisdiction, has in the last twenty years begun to follow the common law doctrine of
res judicata.

In international law
Arguably, res judicata is a general principle of international law under Article 38 (1)(c) of the International Court of
Justice Statute. "The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are
submitted to it, shall apply: ... c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations".[8][9][clarification
needed]
Similar provisions are also found in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 4 of Protocol
7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in the two said conventions, the application of res judicata
is restricted to criminal proceedings only. In the European Convention, reopening of a concluded criminal
proceedings is possible if -
(a) it is in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned; (b) there is evidence of new or newly
discovered facts, or (c) if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings,
which could affect the outcome of the case.

In other uses
The term is also sometimes used in related contexts. During the release of the SCOTUS judgement on the Affordable
Care Act, the writers of SCOTUSBlog described how their interpretation of the judgement (that the law had been
upheld) was challenged by their readers solely on the basis that other news networks had made the (erroneous) call
earlier than them, thus giving their interpretation a veneer of respectability on the basis of having been the first.[10]
--
The U.S. legal system places a high value on allowing a party to litigate a civil lawsuit for money damages only once.
U.S. courts employ the rule of res judicata to prevent a dissatisfied party from trying to litigate the issue a second
time.

Res judicata will be applied to a pending lawsuit if several facts can be established by the party asserting the res
judicata defense. First, the party must show that a final judgment on the merits of the case had been entered by a
court having jurisdiction over the matter. This means that a final decision in the first lawsuit was based on the factual
and legal disputes between the parties rather than a procedural defect, such as the failure to serve the defendant with
legal process.

Once a court makes a final decision, it enters a final judgment in the case. The judgment recites pertinent data about
the case, such as the names of the parties, the fact that a jury verdict was rendered, and the disposition made. The
judgment is filed with the court administrator for that judicial jurisdiction.

The party asserting res judicata, having introduced a final judgment on the merits, must then show that the decision in
the first lawsuit was conclusive as to the matters in the second suit. For example, assume that the plaintiff in the first
lawsuit asserted that she was injured in an auto accident. She sues the driver of the other auto under a theory of
Negligence. A jury returns a verdict that finds that the defendant was not negligent. The injured driver then files a
second lawsuit alleging additional facts that would help her prove that the other driver was negligent. A court would
dismiss the second lawsuit under res judicata because the second lawsuit is based on the same Cause of Action
(negligence) and the same injury claim.

Under the companion rule of Collateral Estoppel, the plaintiff will not be allowed to file a second lawsuit for money
damages using a different cause of action or claim. Under collateral estoppel, the parties are precluded from litigating
a second lawsuit using a different cause of action based on any issue of fact common to both suits that had been
litigated and determined in the first suit. For example, the plaintiff who lost her auto accident case based on a theory
of negligence cannot proceed with a second lawsuit based on an allegation that the driver intentionally struck her
auto, thus making it an intentional tort cause of action. A court would assert collateral estoppel because the plaintiff
could have alleged an intentional tort cause of action in the original complaint.

The application of res judicata and collateral estoppel produces finality for the parties and promotes judicial economy.
Parties know that when final judgment is entered and all appeals are exhausted, the case is over and the decision will
be binding on all issues determined in the lawsuit.

Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion)
Rule: If an issue has been decided in a particular case, it is treated as decidedwithout further proofin any
subsequent litigation that involves the issue. In other words, a person or party who seeks to relitigate any already
decided issue is collaterally stopped from doing so.

Per curiam decision
[Latin, By the court.] A phrase used to distinguish an opinion of the whole court from an opinion written by any one
judge.
Sometimes per curiam signifies an opinion written by the chief justice or presiding judge; it can also refer to a brief
oral announcement of the disposition of a case by the court that is unaccompanied by a written opinion.
- by the court as a whole rather than by a single justice and usually without extended discussion
- An opinion from an appellate court that does not identify any specific judge who may have written the opinion.
--
A "per curiam" decision is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court rather than specific
judges. Most decisions on the merits by the Supreme Court (and other appellate courts in the U.S.) take the form of
one or more opinions signed by individual justices (and joined in by others). Even when such signed opinions are
unanimous, they are not termed "per curiam." "Per curiam" decisions are given that label by the Court itself and tend
to be short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial.
--
In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the
decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and anonymously.[1] In
contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision,[1]
but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed.[2]
Per curiams are not the only type of decision that can reflect the opinion of the court. Other types of decisions can
also reflect the opinion of the entire court, such as unanimous decisions, in which the opinion of the court is
expressed with an author listed.[3] The Latin term per curiam literally means "by the court".