# Distinguishing > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Distinguishing > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Distinguishing.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing > Source revision: 1351647053 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) {{Short description|Practice of the law courts}} In [law](/source/law), to '''distinguish''' a [case](/source/Legal_case) means a court decides whether the [holding](/source/Holding_(law)) or legal reasoning of a [precedent](/source/precedent) case will not apply due to [materially](/source/Materiality_(law)) different facts between the two cases or not.Malleson, Kate and Moules, Richard. ''The Legal System.'' [Oxford University Press](/source/Oxford_University_Press). 2010. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZZmcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&q=%22if%20there%20are%20materially%20different%20facts%2C%20the%20court%20may%20distinguish%20the%20case%22 p.69] Two formal constraints constrain the later court: the expressed relevant factors (also known as considerations, tests, questions or determinants) in the ''[ratio](/source/Ratio_decidendi)'' (legal reasoning) of the earlier case must be recited or their equivalent recited or the earlier case makes an exception for their application in the [circumstances otherwise it envisages](/source/obiter), and the ruling in the later case must not expressly doubt (criticise) the result reached in the precedent case.Lamond, Grant. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/index.html#PreLayDowRul "Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning: 2.1 Precedents as laying down rules:] 2.1.2 The practice of distinguishing". ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.'' [Stanford University](/source/Stanford_University). 2006-06-20. The ruling made by the judge or panel of judges must be based on the evidence at hand and the standard [binding authorities](/source/binding_authority) covering the subject-matter and areas of law cited in or plainly relevant to the dispute (they must be ''followed''). This means that a precedent will be dealt to (in English and Scottish law known instead as ''applied to'') a case with similar facts, in which a decision can then be distinguished based upon this, or it may be cited with approval but found to be inapplicable on bases reconcilable with the earlier decision's reasoning. ==Wide and narrow distinguishment== Where a wide new class of distinguished cases is made, such as distinguishing all cases on [privity of contract law](/source/privity_(law)) in the establishment of the court-made [tort](/source/tort) of [negligence](/source/negligence) or a case turns on too narrow a set of variations in facts ("turns on its own facts") compared to the routinely applicable precedent(s), such decisions are at high risk of being successfully overruled (by higher courts) on the bases respectively that: #The lower court has invented the lawSee: {{cite web |url=http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1838186/Example_Development-of-law-negligence.pdf |title=Example of the Development of Court Made Law |website=Law School |publisher=University of Western Australia}} Development of the Law of Negligence in Australia, following Scottish specifically in the UK supreme court (House of Lords) which distinguished all cases on privity of contract, which apparently applied to most earlier observers before the new law in 1932 was fully formulated. #The lower court has failed to follow a binding precedent ==Examples== ''[Balfour v Balfour](/source/Balfour_v_Balfour)'' (1919) and ''[Merritt v Merritt](/source/Merritt_v_Merritt)'' (1970) were cases involving the enforceability of maintenance agreements. In each case a wife sued her husband, alleging [breach of contract](/source/breach_of_contract). The judge in ''Balfour'' held the claim could not be sustained without evidence of intention to create legal regulations, so there was no legally binding contract. By contrast, in ''Merritt v Merritt'', the judge distinguished ''Balfour v Balfour'', deciding that the facts were materially different in that: (i) the husband and wife were separated and no longer "in amity"; and (ii) the agreement was made {{em|after}} they had separated, and {{em|in writing}}. In ''[Read v Lyons](/source/Read_v_Lyons)'' (1947),{{cite BAILII|litigants=Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd|court=UKHL|year=1946|num=2|parallelcite=[https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/1941000450/casereport_8128/html [1947] AC 156]|date=18 October 1946}} [http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Read-v-Lyons.php] (where a munitions worker was injured in a factory explosion), the court distinguished ''[Rylands v Fletcher](/source/Rylands_v_Fletcher)'' (1868) because in the present case, even though the defendant factory kept "dangerous things on the land for a non-natural user", there was "no escape". ==Obiter followed== Where an ''[obiter dictum](/source/obiter_dictum)'' (a non-binding statement based on hypothetical facts) is subsequent followed and adopted, then the later case is said to "approve" that ''obiter'', and the earlier case may be marked "approved", "followed", or "obiter followed". ==See also== * [Case law](/source/Case_law) * [Opinion](/source/Opinion) * [Precedent](/source/Precedent) ** [Persuasive authority](/source/Persuasive_authority) ** [Binding authority](/source/Binding_authority) == References == {{Reflist}} Category:Legal reasoning --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Distinguishing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.