Distinguishing

For Wikipedia disambiguating see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

In law, to distinguish a case means to contrast the facts of the case before the court from the facts of a case of precedent where there is an apparent similarity. By successfully distinguishing a case, the holding or legal reasoning of the earlier case will either not apply or will be limited. There are two formal constraints on the later court: the factors in the ratio of the earlier case must be retained in formulating the ratio of the later case, and the ruling in the later case must still support the result reached in the precedent case.^[1]

Whether a case is successfully distinguished often looks to whether the distinguished facts are material to the matter.

Examples

The English cases Balfour v. Balfour (1919) and Merritt v Merritt (1970) both involve a wife making a claim against her husband for breach of contract. The judge in Balfour decided that a claim could not be made because there was no intention to create legal regulations, there was no legally binding contract. However in Merritt v. Merritt, the judge decided that the facts of this case was sufficiently different in that, while the parties were husband and wife, the agreement was made after they had separated, in writing, thus distinguishing the case from Balfour.

See also

• Case law
• Opinion
• Precedent

References

1. ^ "Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning: 2.1 Precedents as laying down rules: 2.1.2 The practice of distinguishing". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006-06-20.