What describes disapproving a precedent?

What describes disapproving a precedent?

• A. Lower courts must ignore the precedent
• B. Lower courts still follow the precedent but a judge shows dissatisfaction in applying it
• C. A judge overrules it on appeal
• D. A judge distinguishes it by finding different facts

Answer: (B)

At the heart of this is how precedent works: lower courts are bound by it, even if a judge personally disagrees with the rule. Disapproving a precedent can happen in a way that preserves the binding effect for the case at hand. A judge may agree with the outcome but express dissatisfaction with the reasoning or with applying the rule to the current facts. This is typically done in a concurring opinion or by signaling misgivings while still applying the precedent. So the description that fits best is that lower courts still follow the precedent but a judge shows dissatisfaction in applying it. It captures the idea of disapproval without overturning or bypassing the rule in that case. The other options describe actions that would overturn or avoid the precedent entirely or ignore it, which go beyond merely disapproving it.

At the heart of this is how precedent works: lower courts are bound by it, even if a judge personally disagrees with the rule. Disapproving a precedent can happen in a way that preserves the binding effect for the case at hand. A judge may agree with the outcome but express dissatisfaction with the reasoning or with applying the rule to the current facts. This is typically done in a concurring opinion or by signaling misgivings while still applying the precedent.

So the description that fits best is that lower courts still follow the precedent but a judge shows dissatisfaction in applying it. It captures the idea of disapproval without overturning or bypassing the rule in that case. The other options describe actions that would overturn or avoid the precedent entirely or ignore it, which go beyond merely disapproving it.