If the judge in a case follows the obiter dictum of a previous one, does this set a ‘Precedent’ or can it be referred to as a test case or is it neither?

Hello joe:

Precedent is set on appeal. The trier of fact is supposed to follow precedent - not set it.

However, this probably doesn't answer your question. Why don't you tell us what's going on?

excon

If the judge in a case follows the obiter dictum of a previous one, does this set a ‘Precedent’ or can it be referred to as a test case or is it neither?

"Obiter dicutm", or "sheer, undadulterated dictum" means words written by a jurist which really are unnecessary to reach the conclusion made.
As such, they are only the judge's opinion on a particular point of law but, since unnecessary, are considered to have no precidental value. It is not binding on judges in subsequent cases.

You may always use privior ruligs in courts or other courts to try and prove your case in court. Of course most likely the other side will or can find similar cases with other outcomes that they can present

Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.

An example of an instance where a court opinion may include obiter dicta is where a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a case or dismisses the case on a technicality. If the court in such a case offers opinions on the merits of the case, such opinions may constitute obiter dicta.

Obiter dictum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum)