"Is this case on point?" is a question every litigator asks many times a week, and one that opposing counsel and judges will ask about your citations too. A case that merely mentions your issue is not necessarily on point. A case is on point when its holding answers your question on materially similar facts, in a court whose decisions carry weight where you are. Each of those parts deserves a closer look.
The holding: what the court actually decided
The holding is the rule of law necessary to the court's decision on the facts before it. It is the part of the opinion that binds later courts under stare decisis. A practical test: if you removed the statement from the opinion, would the outcome have to change? If yes, you are probably looking at the holding. If the result would stand without it, you may be looking at dicta.
Some features make the holding harder to pin down:
- Alternative holdings. A court may give two independent reasons for its result. Courts generally treat both as holdings, but check how courts in your jurisdiction treat them.
- Narrow vs. broad readings. Later courts often read a holding narrowly, limited to its facts, or broadly, as a general principle. How subsequent cases have characterized the holding matters as much as the original wording.
- Fractured decisions. When there is no majority opinion, identifying the holding can be difficult. Look for how later courts in your jurisdiction have treated the decision.
Dicta: said, but not decided
Dicta (obiter dicta) are statements in an opinion that were not necessary to the decision: observations about hypothetical facts, comments on issues the court declined to reach, or broad statements of law beyond what the case required. Dicta are not binding, but they are not worthless:
- Considered dicta from a higher court can be highly persuasive, and some courts give it significant weight.
- Dicta can show where a court is heading, or signal an open question.
- Dicta can be cited — as long as you are candid about what it is.
Citing dicta as if it were a holding is a common way to lose credibility with a judge. If a statement is dicta, say so ("the court observed…"), and pair it with a holding if you can.
Material facts: the "on point" test in practice
Two cases apply the same rule; one is on point, the other isn't. The difference is usually the facts. Material facts are the facts the court relied on in reaching its decision — the ones that, if changed, might change the result.
When you compare a case to yours, list the facts the court emphasized and ask for each: is my case the same, different, or silent on this? A case with a matching holding but different material facts can often be distinguished. A case with closely matching facts and an adverse holding is one you must address, not ignore.
Procedural posture and standard of review
The same legal question can be decided very differently depending on posture:
- On a motion to dismiss, the court takes the pleaded facts as true. A ruling that a complaint survives does not mean the claim succeeds.
- At summary judgment, the question is whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact — a case denying summary judgment says little about who wins at trial.
- On appeal, the standard of review (de novo, clear error, abuse of discretion) shapes what the appellate court actually decided. Affirming under a deferential standard is not the same as holding that the ruling was required.
Before you rely on a case, note its posture and its standard of review, and make sure it matches the use you plan to make of it.
Binding vs. persuasive authority
A case can be on point and still carry little weight where you are. Binding authority generally means decisions of the higher courts in your jurisdiction's chain (and, on questions of federal law, the Supreme Court). Everything else is persuasive: decisions from other circuits or states, lower courts, and unpublished opinions.
Unpublished opinions deserve a special check. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 allows citation of unpublished federal appellate opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007, but each circuit's local rules govern how much weight they get, and state courts have their own rules. Check the rules of the court you're in before citing one.
A quick checklist
Before you cite a case as on point, confirm:
- The holding (not dicta) answers your question.
- The material facts are close enough — or you can explain why the differences don't matter.
- The posture and standard of review fit your use of the case.
- The court carries the weight you need, and you've checked for contrary binding authority.
- It is still good law — not reversed, overruled, or limited by later cases.
How It's On Point scores relevance
Every case in an It's On Point report comes with a relevance score, a short summary of the holding, a comparison of the facts, whether it helps or hurts your position, and a verbatim quote checked against the opinion text. It is designed to get you to the right cases faster — the reading and judgment remain yours.
For licensed attorneys. General information about legal research, not legal advice. Always read the full opinion and confirm that every authority is still good law before relying on it.
Have a question you need on-point cases for? Start a research request — $99 per topic, with every case linked to its source.