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

ratio decidendi
the rule in a decision. This is a crucial part of the understanding of the way in which the
common law works. Once a system has been adopted of binding PRECEDENT, it has to be
discovered what it is in the previous decision that binds the court later in time. While it is
sometimes possible to peruse the opinion of the judge to find the rule, this is not by any means a
reliable way of discovering the rule in the case. The soundest general method is to discover the
material facts of the case, determine what the decision was and then to draw the proposition that
most closely marries the material facts to the actual decision. It is difficult enough to do this with
a single opinion but very much harder with multiple opinions such as come from the Court of
Appeal, the Inner House and the House of Lords. Sometimes it is said to be impossible to form a
ratio of general application. Anything that is said that is not part of the ratio is said to be an
OBITER DICTUM.

The ponente is the Member to whom the Court, after its deliberation on the merits of a case, assigns the
writing of its decision or resolution in the case. Section 7. Resolutions of motions for reconsideration or
clarification of decisions or signed resolutions; creation of a Special Division.

Search Results
Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already]
judged", and refers to either of 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; and the legal doctrine meant
to bar

Res judicata or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter
[already] judged", and refers to either of 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; and
the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues
between the same parties. 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.

The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case
supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding 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, and confusion

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 was obtained in the first action;

the claim is of such nature as could have been joined in the first action. [1]

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.[2]

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 defence unless the defendant could show that the differing designations were not legitimate and
sufficient.
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[3] 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.

Rationale

Res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests. Its primary purpose is to
assure an efficient judicial system. A related purpose is to create "repose" and finality.[4]

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 recognised, 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 adjudication

he law of the case is a legal term of art that is applicable mainly in common law, or Anglo-
American, jurisdictions that recognize the related doctrine of stare decisis. The phrase refers to
instances where "rulings made by a trial court and not challenged on appeal become the law of
the case." [1] "Unless the trial court's rulings were clearly in error or there has been an important
change in circumstances, the court's prior rulings must stand." [2] Usually the situation occurs
when either a case is on appeal for the second timee.g. if the reviewing court remanded the
matter to the trial court and the party appeals again or if the case was appealed in a higher
appellate courtfor example, from an appellate court to the highest court.
As generally used, "law of the case" states that, if an appellate court has passed on a legal
question and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question
thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal
in the same case where the facts remain the same.[3]

The doctrine provides that an appellate courts determination on a legal issue is binding on both
the trial court on remand and on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal given the same case
and substantially the same facts.[4]

The "law of the case" doctrine, however, is one of policy only and will be disregarded when
compelling circumstances call for a redetermination of a point of law on prior appeal. This is
particularly true where an intervening or a contemporaneous change in law has occurred where
former decisions have been overruled or new precedent has been established by controlling
authority.[5]

The "law of the case" doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one
of three "exceptional circumstances" exists: (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at
a subsequent trial, (2) when a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling
authority, or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice

Dura lex, sed lex. "The law [is] harsh, but [it is] the law". It follows from the principle of the rule of law
that even draconian laws must be followed and enforced; if one disagrees with the result, one must seek
to change the law.

stare decisis
[stair-ee di-sahy-sis]
Examples
Word Origin

noun, Law.
1.
the doctrine that rules or principles of law on which a court rested a previous decision are
authoritative in all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same.
stare decisis

ster dsss/
noun
Law
noun: stare decisis
 1. the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precede

Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta) is an opinion or a remark made by a judge which does not form a
necessary part of the court's decision. The word obiter dicta is a Latin word which means things said by
the way. Obiter dicta can be passing comments, opinions or examples provided by a judge. Statements
constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding. For example, if a court dismisses a case due to lack of
jurisdiction and offers opinions on merits of a case, then these opinions constitutes obiter dicta.

Obiter Dictum Law and Legal Definition. Obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta) is an opinion or a remark
made by a judge which does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. The word obiter dicta is a
Latin word which means things said by the way.