[Roscius]

...and you've gotten the legal definition wrong.

That precedent only applies to appellate court decisions is not true. There's persuasive precedent applies amongst courts of the same level.

It the facts and law are the same, a similar lower court decision could indeed be introduced in a similar case. The precedent isn't necessarily binding, but courts will generally defer unless there is a pervasive reason not too.

This is seen when the Supreme Court defers to its previous decisions (stare decisis)

[rosser]

Do you mean "persuasive precedent"?

If so, you're right that it's not binding. Higher courts can, and do, defer to lower courts — where the higher court concurs with the lower court's legal reasoning. But that requires the case to have appeared before an appellate court.

The reason for this is simple: trial courts consider questions of fact, while appellate courts consider questions of law.

Similarly, so-called "horizontal precedent" applies between peer appellate courts — and, again, isn't binding.

To my understanding, the only way this becomes more than informally precedential is if it's legitimately a "case of first impression" — and that would apply IFF this case is legitimately the first place this question of law was asked, and only until it's heard and ruled upon (or not taken up) by an appellate court.

[Roscius]

Yes corrected to read "persuasive" (phone auto-corrected).

Non-binding precedent is still precedent. And as you've said, in the absence of an higher court opinion to the contrary, lower court decisions can be taken as precedent and can be considered at the lower court (trial court level).

Lower courts consider new questions of law, otherwise new questions would never be able to be addressed (with some state level advisory opinions aside)