Final answer:
The Louisiana Court of Appeals indicated that obiter dictum is not as authoritative as stare decisis, which is the foundational principle of legal decision-making based on precedent in the common law system.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Louisiana Court of Appeals noted that obiter dictum is considered to be only a secondary source of law and is not as authoritative as stare decisis. The principle of stare decisis maintains that decisions are based heavily on past rulings to ensure consistency, legality, and stability in the U.S. common law system. Obiter dictum, on the other hand, may consist of remarks made by a judge that are not necessary to the resolution of the case and, therefore, are not binding precedent.
Stare decisis is essential in the U.S. legal system where earlier decisions influence current and future rulings to promote fairness and prevent judicial arbitrariness. Despite its importance, precedent can change when new judges interpret laws differently, as evidenced by landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson's 'separate but equal' doctrine. While secondary sources like obiter dictum may offer some insight, case law and established legal precedents formed by courts' decisions are the foundation of the common law tradition in the United States.