Do Judges in China Follow Wrongly Decided Precedents?—An Empirical Study.

This article investigates whether Chinese judges follow prior judicial decisions known as typical cases (TCs), even when those precedents contain judicial errors, and examines why they do so. Analyzing 310 court decisions related to surety-creditor disputes before and after two Supreme People's Court (SPC) TCs—later disapproved as wrongly decided—the study finds that judges do rely on these officially designated precedents despite their flaws. The influence of TCs is stronger in lower courts, with Intermediate People's Courts (IPCs) more likely than Higher People's Courts (HPCs) or the SPC to follow such precedents. These findings, based on empirical data from case reports rather than surveys or interviews, suggest that Chinese judges follow TCs primarily for guidance in statutory interpretation and to maintain consistency, regardless of the precedents' correctness, which has implications for judicial reform and understanding judicial behavior in China.