Evidence Terminology

Admissible -- Evidence that a trial judge has the discretion to admit is admissible. Not all admissible evidence is admitted at trial.

Relevant -- Evidence that has some bearing on the issues at trial. Not all relevant evidence is admissible.

Probative value -- The degree to which an item of evidence supports the proposition it is offered to prove. Relevance is an all-or-nothing thing: An item of evidence is either relevant or irrelevant. Probative value is a continuous quantity: An item of evidence can be nonprobative (in which case it is irrelevant), slightly probative, very probative, etc.

Precedent, Holding, Dictum, etc. -- see below

Stephen J. Burton, An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning 29-31 (2d ed. 1995)

. . . Legal reasoning by analogy uses a vocabulary and rhetoric that emphasize the need for rigorous attention to [the base point situation and the problem situation]. In controversial cases, which are the problem cases that require lawerly skill, there will be many precedents that are somewhat similar to the problem case but seem to cut both ways.

. . . .

We say that a judge or decision follows precedent when the facts of a precedent are so similar to those of a problem case that the same outcome is required (unless the earlier case is overruled). A judge or case distinguishes precedent when the facts of a precedent are so different that a different outcome is required. . . . Stare decisis requires judges to distinguish dissimilar precedents as much as it requires them to follow similar precedents.

. . .

Whether a precedent should be followed or distinguished depends in part on a careful analysis of the facts of the precedent in relation to the facts of a problem case. The facts of a case consist of a description of the events in the world that set the stage for the dispute, how the parties came to find themselves in dispute, and sometimes what the parties did to resolve the dispute on their own. These are all events that normally occur before a court is asked to settle the dispute and mostly can be described in ordinary, nontechnical language. The facts of a case also include a description of the legal proceedings in the lower court, if any, as necessary to identify the legal point that was or may be appealed to the higher court. Most important, the legal issue on appeal always involves the question whether the trial judge erred in making some particular decision under the factual circumstances in the case. . . .

. . .

. . . A judge has no authority at common law to enact an authoritative general rule to govern parties and situations that were not before the court. Thus, the judge in Case 1 could not decide the outcome in Case 3, however broadly she may craft a rule to explain the decision in Case 1. In all likelihood, the judge in Case 1 did not consider the facts of Case 3 et seq. when crafting the general rule. Its mechanical application in later cases may yield a thoughtless and arbitrary result. More important, the parties in the later cases are entitled to their days in court. They should not have their rights adjudicated on the basis of facts and arguments put before the court by others in Case 1, due to the happenstance that the language employed by the court in Case 1 was sufficiently general to be so used.

These characteristics of common law adjudication are reinforced by the practice of distinguishing between the holding of a case and its dicta. "Holding" is commonly used in either of two senses. A broad holding is much like a common law rule, which states its factual part in general terms. To minimize confusion, let us call this a "ruling." A narrow holding is more case-specific and difficult to get a handle on. For our purposes, a holding is a statement that captures in a sentence or two the probable significance of a single precedent as a base point for reasoning by analogy in future cases.

A holding summarizes the important case-specific facts in the precedent case and states the legal consequences then attached to those facts. . . .

Common law rules stated in precedents are dicta to the extent they are broader than a case-specific statement of the important facts and the legal outcome. (Statements on points of law that need not be decided in the case are called "obiter dicta.") Dicta lack the status of legal authority . . . .