What characterizes a previous case that is defined as 'on point'?

A case that is defined as 'on point' is characterized by having similar facts and legal issues to the case being considered. This similarity is crucial because it allows courts to rely on the precedent set by the previous case when making a decision. The reasoning and conclusions drawn in the earlier case can be applied directly to the current case, thereby guiding judges and lawyers in their interpretations of the law and helping to ensure consistency in legal rulings.

While the involvement of the same parties might relate to res judicata or effectiveness of prior adjudications, it is not a necessary condition for a case to be considered 'on point.' Additionally, not every case needs to establish new law to be relevant; sometimes, they simply clarify existing principles. Lastly, whether or not a case has gone through appeals does not impact its potential to serve as a relevant precedent if its facts and legal issues align with the current matter at hand.