Dark Brew and Sparkling Ale are competitors in the microbrewing industry. To market their competing wares, they use Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. A dispute arises between these parties over the statements each makes about the other through these sites. Dark Brew files a suit against Sparkling Ale. The parties argue their respective sides of the dispute, each citing earlier cases that appear to favor their contentions. Each party asks the court to consider the principles of law established in these cases to make a decision in this case. What is the term for these former decisions? Which decisions, if any, is the court obligated to follow? The earlier cases are known as________ . Later cases that involve similar principles or facts are decided with reference to those_______ . Courts are obligated to follow the established within their ________. The doctrine attempts to harmonize the results in cases with _______ facts. In other words, the objective is to decide similar cases in a similar way.

In Dark Brew and Sparkling Ale's case, the court follows a doctrine that requires it to review the rules of law established by other courts.

What is the term for the doctrine under which a court reviews the principles suggested by the decisions of other courts in earlier cases? What are the advantages of this practice? The practice of deciding new cases by referring to earlier court decisions is known as the doctrine of ______________. This practice is a ____________of the U.S. judicial system. The reasoning in the other courts' opinions can serve as a guide, allowing a court reviewing the cases to be more ________ . When the law on a subject is well settled, the application of this doctrine makes the law more ________________.