This is a continuation of an existing question: Is there one body of common law?
Now, referring to an article on NPR: On Libel And The Law, U.S. And U.K. Go Separate Ways, it is stated by the journalist Ari Shapiro that normally US courts would honor the UK courts libel rulings. (This, of course, before the new law in the US Congress passed and was signed by Obama.)
My question is by "honoring the UK court's ruling", Ari Shapiro means that the US court would cite the UK court's ruling and then issue its own, separate, new ruling -- correct? As opposed to honoring the UK court's ruling as a straight-out precedent in the same way an appellate court would have to straighten-out honor the ruling of the United States Supreme Court?
Basically, what I am asking is: isn't it true that when it concerns common law and this concept of common laws' common ancient ancestor, any given jurisdiction, say an Australian Court, is not required to follow the common law precedent of another jurisdiction, say a Canadian court? Instead, the Australian court would issue its own new, separate ruling and simply cite the Canadian common law ruling in its own new, separate ruling - correct?