Why case law quoted in support of X often rules against X?
<p>It appears quite common that when trying to find support for decision X, cases which in actuality finally rule against X are quoted, and very few cases which actually grant X can be found.</p>

<p>Why does this happen?  Does it at all affect the outcome of existing cases, when someone quotes an older case trying to prove a point to obtain a decision X, where in actuality the final decision of such old cases were to finally rule against X?</p>

<p>The process you describe is an exceedingly common method of proving a point when there is not factually analogous precedent for that particular point.  By way of over-simplified example, there may be precedent for the proposition 1 + 2 = 3, but there may not be equivalent precedent for the proposition that 6 - 4 = 2.  An advocate might cite the former to support the latter, even though they are not entirely analogous.  In the world of legal citation, this type of citation is usually indicated with <em>cf</em>.</p>

<p>Similarly, there may be a principle of law that is announced in a case that "goes the wrong way" that is nonetheless helpful to support the case of the person who, in <em>this</em> case is on the opposite side.  So, again, in an over-simplified example, a court might announce that "the sky is green," and conclude that under the facts of the particular case, a particular result is warranted.  Someone on the other side of the same issue might nonetheless argue that this case supports their position, based upon the facts of their case, citing to the conclusion that the sky is green.</p>

<p>This type of argument is much more effective when the opinion announcing the proposition is of significant precedential value -- e.g., an announcement of legal principles by a higher (or highest) court.</p>

<p>In reaching any opinion, courts generally examine an area of law, looking at all elements of a cause of action which will naturally contain some points that can be argued in favor of either side. After a general discussion of what the law is, courts then apply the law to the facts of that case in reaching a final "who wins" decision in the case. A specific case may turn on a strict meeting of each of the elements in the case, or the court's reasoning may apply a broader brush basing their decision on the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding a case. (that is the way courts "fudge" a little bit in reaching a decision)</p>

<p>Even though a given decision may have gone in favor of the other side, adverse authority with a good statement of the law is every bit as good as favorable authority that contains only a cursory treatment of the law. When handling adverse authority, it is then up to you to show why the unfavorable decision is <strong>distinguishable</strong> from the facts of the current case and why the outcome should be different this time.</p>

case-law