What term describes the situation when Circuit Courts reach different conclusions on the same legal issue?

The term that describes the situation when Circuit Courts reach different conclusions on the same legal issue is "Circuit Split." This phenomenon occurs when two or more appellate courts, particularly federal circuit courts, interpret the law differently concerning the same legal questions. Such discrepancies can lead to inconsistent applications of the law across jurisdictions, which can create uncertainty for individuals and legal practitioners.

A circuit split can prompt the Supreme Court to step in to resolve the differing interpretations, thereby providing clarity and uniformity in the law. This resolution is important for ensuring a consistent application of legal principles nationwide.

In contrast, "Stare Decisis" refers to the legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow established precedent when making decisions, "De Novo" is a standard of review that means the court is considering an issue anew without relying on previous rulings, and "Prima Facie" means that evidence is sufficient to establish a fact unless disproven. These terms relate to different aspects of legal proceedings and are not synonymous with the concept of varying interpretations by different circuit courts on the same issue.