What Constitutes a Legal Holding?
Holdings are the key elements of a judicial opinion that serve to resolve issues. They are seen as expressions of the judge’s decision and rules of law upon which the decision is based. A holding often follows a short statement of the facts and a statement of the law. It may lay out the rationale of the decision. While a holding can refer to an overarching rule of law that resolves the issue, such as "The manufacturer is not liable for simple negligence," it can also contain its own fact-specific exegesis. As with any legal doctrine, in circumstances where there is a specific statute, rule or regulation – or even a constitutional prohibition – the holding is simply the determinant.
Holdings often resolve issues between parties and form the basis upon which further court action rests . In non-jury matters, an appeal is usually limited to the holding. An example of a holding is found in the Court of Apellate Opinion pertaining to the matter of Sterling v. Landon: "In order for the tort of fraud to apply to the case at bar and to make defendants individually liable, each named defendant must be found to have committed fraud, and we find no such finding."
Appellate briefs and memoranda frequently attack lower court holdings in low-volume, such as in Sterling v. Landon, alleging in the first paragraph that the lower court improperly weighted the decision of the jury. Another element to note is that once an issue is properly decided, there is no need to repeat the holding.
Hallmarks of a Legal Holding
The essential elements constituting a legal holding are the Court’s decision, the rationale therefor, and what law will apply to the parties in the future. In the paragraph or paragraphs where a court announces its holding(s), thus signaling the end of the appellate process, the court first states clearly and in unmistakable language its decision on the issue or issues under review. For example, the court might simply say "We AFFIRM" or "We REVERSE AND REMAND." Sometimes, however, a court cannot be that succinct, even though the court’s holding is straightforward. For instance, the court may find that the trial court erred in one regard, but that such error was harmless, and reverse the trial court’s holding as to an erroneous part only and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment consistent with the court’s opinion. In that instance, the appellate court’s holding will be longer and more complex. The rationale announced by the court evidently is just as important as the court’s holding because it explicates the court’s reasoning, thereby providing the parties guidance in how to address the issue in the future. It remains crystal clear that the law applied will bind the parties in the future but that statement does not need to be repeated. Sometimes the holding will be qualified by contra non valentem, esoteric statutes, or laws outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Holding vs. Dicta
The difference between a "holding" and "dicta" is extremely important in order to distinguish the legal principle established by a court decision and the logical extension of that rule.
"Holding" is often a judge’s answer to the specific issue placed before him or her and is the law as decided in the case. "Dicta," on the other hand, is judicial commentary that has no effect on the outcome of the decision. Dicta contains a judge’s opinion and is not legally binding.
Determining whether a statement in a case is a "holding" or "dicta" is of great importance to legal practitioners. A holding is mandatory precedent that must be applied by courts at a later date when the same or similar issues arise. Dicta does not have this precedential effect.
This distinction does not only affect the outcome of a case, but can also result in sanctions for counsel. For example, if counsel cites an opinion in support of a proposition of law that is in fact dicta as opposed to a holding, opposing counsel may move for sanctions. In such a case, an attorney may be required to demonstrate that the case cited was not dicta. An asserting attorney may also suffer reputational harm as a result of losing a motion for sanctions.
The risks associated with incorrectly citing a case, or citing a portion of the opinion rather than the holding of the court, is probably greater for first rather than party cited opinions. Citing a first cited opinion may be construed as an attempt to mislead the court. Although sanctions may be available when sanctions are applied for improper citing of a case, few sanctions motions are granted. In some jurisdictions, an attorney who is deemed to have filed a frivolous motion for sanctions may be ordered to pay the attorney’s fees of the opponent.
The concept of dicta was codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C. ยง 2106. The Code states:
"The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, reverse, modify, vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or decree appealed from or under review and may remand the cause and direct the filing of additional findings or a new judgment or otherwise and the Supreme Court may, to secure the ends of justice, require such further proceedings to be had in the lower courts as may be just, including proceedings after judgment, in addition to and not inconsistent with those provided by law."
Earlier cases held that dicta does not constitute "a change in the law." The current federal codification clarifies the concept of dicta as providing flexibility to tribal and federal courts when courts do not feel compelled to follow case law that is not consistent with achieving "the ends of justice." Whether this codification will affect how federal courts treat dicta, however, remains uncertain.
Influence of a Holding on Cases
The holdings of a case play a fundamental role in the overarching structure of legal precedent. When a court issues a decision, that decision becomes binding upon lower courts in subsequent cases. As you move up the court hierarchy, the precedent likewise moves up. For example, a holding from a trial court in a criminal fraud case would not be binding on an appellate court, which in turn would not be binding on the supreme court.
Although the hierarchy of the courts is somewhat fluid, generally trial courts are at the bottom level. There are several trial courts in every state, so each decision made in such courts is only binding on that particular trial court. However, decisions of a trial court can be persuasive to other lower courts in that jurisdiction. Since trial courts are the first to hear cases, trial court cases often have a lot of leeway to interpret the law themselves.
When a trial court case result is appealed, the intermediate appellate court is hearing the case. The decision of the intermediate court will be binding on all the lower courts in that jurisdiction. Once the case goes to a high enough appellate court , the issue may be decided by a court that is binding upon all lower courts. Thus, the hierarchy of the court system plays a crucial role in legal precedent.
It is important to understand that the outcome of a holding will only be used as binding precedent on lower courts in future cases if the case is for all intents and purposes on point. If the facts of the current case are distinguishable from the case that is being relied on as precedent, a lower court may be able to reach a different result from the prior case.
Thus, although there exists a hierarchy in the court system that is generally followed when judges are determining which cases should be treated as binding legal precedent, such presumptively binding legal precedent does not always have to be followed. In any appeal to a higher court, such cases will be reviewed to determine whether the lower court made a correct decision. This review may sometimes involve a review of cases that, despite appearing similar to the current case, were not followed due to differences in the relevant facts.
How to Voice a Holding in Legal Terms
Once you are equipped with a solid definition of the term holding and the elements that make up a holding, the next step is to effectively identify and interpret a holding in the context of your legal research. Holding is one of the most common words used in legal terminology, however a holding is an abstract concept, and finding it in a case text can be very challenging. In this section, we outline some tips for finding and interpreting holdings to support your legal arguments. The first element of a holding is the issue, and the primary focus of the research should be to find the issue at hand. The issue identifies the points of law which the court needed to resolve before issuing its judgment, which followed from the legal principles that formed the basis for the court’s decision. A good starting point for finding the issue is to read the headnote, which may contain the issue, or at least include a clue. The table of cases can also often provide a good lead to the issue or a hint of where the issue may be.
Another approach to finding the issue is to scan the case for keywords. Headings such as "background" or "facts" can lead you right to the issue, as should the word "issue" itself. You should read the portion of the case where the issue appears and attempt to extract the holding from there.
The second element of a holding is the answer to the issue. Once you have found the issue, it should be fairly easy to read the answer to the issue as it often appears in the same section of the case using the same structure. If the answer is not immediately clear, look for key words such as "therefore" or "consequently". Be careful not to be mislead by other types of similar words or phrases. We should be familiar with the use of treatises or secondary sources such as legal encyclopedias in the Westlaw or Lawyers’ Weekly or online version of CanLII. An example of a primary or judicial source is caselaw and legislation, whereas a secondary source points to the law as interpreted through a commentary, or from modern sources such as instructionals as illustrated below: A good example of this distinction is provided in Bailey v. Klakowicz 2014 ONCJ 228, where the judge considers the "facts" (paragraph 8) leading to the resolution of the "issue" (paragraph 9) which culminates with the "holding" and the "reasoning" (paragraph 10) as to why the action was dismissed against the defendant. The "legal test" (paragraph 19) is a secondary source of law in the form of case law or legal principles as interpreted in Ontario. The "conclusion" then leads to the "judgment" (paragraph 23).
Iconic Court Holdings and Their Significance
Some court holdings have had a significant impact on the legal system as a whole or have brought about major societal change. In general, a holding is only binding in the courts and jurisdictions affected by the court making the holding and that one must comply with the holding in that jurisdiction even if it has no effect on all courts in the country. With that in mind, some of the most well-known and far-reaching holdings are:
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. 1954. Found that racial segregation of students in public schools was unconstitutional and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Supreme Court case in which the Court held that women had the right to choose to have an abortion without excessive state restrictions.
Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Established Miranda Rights , which require law enforcement to inform suspects facing custodial interrogation of their rights to consult with an attorney and to protect themselves against self-incrimination prior to being interrogated by police.
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. __ (2015). Recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right protected under the Constitution. A 5-4 decision held that same-sex couples are entitled to marry in all U.S. states and that the federal government is required to recognize such marriages.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010). A 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations and unions.