Dicta
Judicial Precedent
(…) Fresh Results argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it failed to consider all relevant public factors after
concluding that the private factors were not in equipoise. The equipoise
standard employed by the district court comes from dicta in our caselaw.
Although our holdings are precedential, our dicta are not. See United States v.
Caraballo-Martinez, 866 F.3d 1233, 1244 (11th Cir. 2017). Dicta refer to “those
portions of an opinion that are not necessary to deciding the case then before
us.” Id. In contrast, our holdings
“constitute the precedent, as a point necessarily decided” in that case. Bryan
A. Garner et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent § 4, at 44 (2016); accord
Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300, 1304–05 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that “a
holding is comprised both of the result of the case and those portions of the
opinion necessary to that result by which we are bound”). And we have explained
that, “regardless of what a court says in its opinion, the decision can hold
nothing beyond the facts of that case.” Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276,
1298 (11th Cir. 2010).
(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Fresh
Results, LLC, a Delaware LLC, v. ASF Holland, B.V., a Dutch Corporation, Total
Produce, PLC, an Irish Public Limited Company, April 22, 2019, Docket No.
18-11595, Circuit Judge William Pryor, for Publication)
