Legal Definitions - not law

The term not law refers to a judicial decision that, while perhaps never formally overturned by a higher court, is widely considered by legal professionals to be incorrect, obsolete, or no longer a valid statement of the law. It signifies a professional consensus that a particular ruling should not be relied upon as binding precedent, even if it technically remains on the books.

This concept arises when a decision's underlying legal principles have been undermined by subsequent legislation, later court rulings (even if not directly overturning the specific case), or significant shifts in societal norms and legal understanding. Lawyers and judges might treat such a decision as if it holds no legal weight, effectively ignoring it in practice.

• Example 1: Outdated Societal Norms and Implicit Overruling

  Imagine a state court ruling from the 1940s that upheld a restrictive covenant in a property deed, preventing individuals of a certain race from purchasing homes in a particular neighborhood. While that specific local ruling might never have been directly appealed and overturned, subsequent landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions (such as Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, which made judicial enforcement of such covenants unconstitutional) and comprehensive civil rights legislation have fundamentally invalidated the legal basis for such restrictions. The legal profession today would universally consider that 1940s ruling to be "not law" because its foundational principles have been completely dismantled by higher legal authority and evolving constitutional interpretation, rendering it unenforceable and irrelevant.

• Example 2: Widely Criticized Lower Court Decision

  Consider a trial court judge who issues a highly unusual ruling in a complex business dispute, interpreting a standard contract clause in a way that contradicts decades of established commercial law and common practice within that jurisdiction. Legal scholars immediately publish articles criticizing the decision, and appellate courts in subsequent, unrelated cases issue rulings that implicitly or explicitly reject the reasoning used by the trial judge, without ever directly hearing an appeal of that specific business dispute. In this scenario, the legal community would view the trial judge's original, flawed interpretation as "not law." It's an outlier decision that has been effectively discredited and ignored by higher authorities and the broader legal profession, meaning no lawyer would advise a client to rely on it.

• Example 3: Obsolete Legal Principles

  Suppose there is a very old state supreme court decision from the late 1800s that established a legal duty based on a concept like "privity of contract" in a way that is no longer recognized in modern tort law. For instance, it might have held that a manufacturer could only be sued for a defective product by the direct purchaser, not by an injured third party who merely used the product. Over the 20th century, legal principles evolved significantly, leading to the widespread adoption of product liability laws that allow injured consumers to sue manufacturers regardless of a direct contractual relationship. While that specific 1800s case might never have been formally appealed and overturned, the legal profession would consider its core holding "not law" because the entire legal framework it was built upon has been superseded by new statutes and judicial interpretations that reflect a different understanding of legal responsibility.