Legal Commentary

Supreme Court Opinion on Reading Precedents

By Eugene Volokh

Since I?m in blegging mode today, I thought I?d ask this as well. I vaguely recall a Supreme Court opinion that says something like: Precedents are not to be treated like statutes, binding in their literal text, but should rather be read in the factual context in which they arose. Does that ring any bells? Let me know, please. Many thanks!

UPDATE: Thanks to Hash and Nunzio for one answer: ?[W]e think it generally undesirable, where holdings of the Court are not at issue, to dissect the sentences of the United States Reports as though they were the United States Code.? St. Mary?s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993). And thanks to my colleague Kevin Ranlett at Mayer Brown for another: ?[T]he language of an opinion is not always to be parsed as though [the court] were dealing with the language of a statute.? Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 341 (1979).

Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on May 19, 2010 (boomark / email).