The purpose of this research is to show the extent to which the ruling of a Judge, whether this ruling is implicit or explicit (whether the explicit essence of the ruling contradicts or agrees with its implicit one), is effective jurisprudentially concerning money, contracts, marriage, and divorce. The research studies the consequences of such a ruling. The research also aims to identify the extent to which the ruling is effective, explicitly or implicitly, if the judge's school of Sharia is different from the school of the person receiving the ruling. This topic is important because it is related to court rulings. This research also identifies the influence of court rulings, whether explicitly or implicitly, by studying the sayings and evidence of jurists on the issues in question. The research uses inductive and descriptive analytical methods. It aims to extrapolate the sayings and evidence of jurists, analyze and discuss these sayings, and conclude the correct sayings. This research has concluded that there is no difference between the views of jurists concerning the effectiveness of a judge's ruling when the explicit essence of the ruling agrees with its implicit one, explicitly or implicitly. If a judge gives a ruling that its explicit essence agrees with is implicit one, and this ruling was controversial; this ruling is effective implicitly and explicitly. If a judge gives a ruling concerning money cases based on false evidence (i.e. when the explicit essence of the ruling contradicts its implicit one), the ruling is unanimously effective explicitly only. The same conclusion is applied when a judge gives a ruling on contracts, marriage, and divorce (and divorce law cases for the majority of jurists). This view is unlike Abu Hanifa's views and the views of people who agree with him.