Following means applying a legal principle from an earlier case to a new case. Overruling means a court decides that the legal principle established in an earlier case should no longer be followed. Distinguishing means a court decides that an earlier case does not govern the new case because the facts are materially different. All three concern judicial precedent: the use of earlier court decisions when deciding later cases.

How each works

When a court follows a precedent, it applies the earlier case’s ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reason for the decision. A precedent may be binding because of the position of the earlier court in the court hierarchy.

When a court overrules a precedent, it replaces the earlier legal principle with a different one in a later case. The court must have authority to do this; a lower court cannot simply overrule a binding decision of a higher court. Overruling is different from reversing, which is when a higher court changes the decision in the same case on appeal.

When a court distinguishes a precedent, it identifies a difference in the facts that matters to the legal outcome. The earlier principle remains valid, but it does not determine the result of this case.

Example

Suppose an earlier case establishes that a shop owes a duty to clear a hazard it knew was on the floor. In a later case involving a similar known hazard, a court might follow that principle. If the later case concerns a hazard the shop had no reasonable opportunity to discover, the court might distinguish the earlier case, provided that difference matters to the legal rule. A court with the necessary authority might instead overrule the earlier case in a later dispute, changing the principle itself.

Exam mistake to avoid: distinguishing does not cancel an earlier precedent. Only overruling changes the precedent’s legal principle.