Citing cases

What is the name of your state? Mississippian residing in France

I have a small question. At what court level must a case be decided at before it can be cited for judicial precedence? The Supreme Court level, or is US Federal District level high enough (like the 9th Federal District level encompassing most of the western US)?

Thank you for any answers you give, even if they aren't the ones I want to hear.

You can quote any decision from any court in the United States. The question is, will the court you are presenting in be obligated to follow the decision? And the answer, unless the decision comes from the U.S. Supreme Court, is no.

Usually, the higher the decision is rendered, the more weight it will have in the court where you are appearing. But even the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself so this isn't a guarantee.

Thanks for your answer, hexeliebe. I sent you an email through the forums. I hope you don't mind. I apologize if it annoys you.

Selina Sedai said:

What is the name of your state? Mississippian residing in France

I have a small question. At what court level must a case be decided at before it can be cited for judicial precedence? The Supreme Court level, or is US Federal District level high enough (like the 9th Federal District level encompassing most of the western US)?

Thank you for any answers you give, even if they aren't the ones I want to hear.

Click to expand...

This is no small question. Entire semester courses are devoted to federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction in law school. TI can give you a very simplified over view which t may help you in gaining some understanding of state jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. Think of two prongs: one state courts; the other federal courts. On the state level, there are the trial courts, the intermediate court of appeals and the State Supreme Court. (New York, however, refers to its lower trial court as "Supreme Court " and Texas has two highest state courts: the Texas Supreme Court is the highest state court for civil cases and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest state court for criminal appeals. So these wringers add to the complications.) But, hopefully, you understand the gist.

Federal courts have the lower trial courts (Dist. Ct., Circuit Court of Appeals and the highest the U.S. Supreme court.

A higher court within the same jurisdiction creates binding law or case precedence on a lower court within that same jurisdiction. Example: Mississippi Supreme court is binding on all lower state courts in Mississippi--all state ct. of appeal and trial courts. Texas, however, isn't bound by what Mississippi or any of state court rules on a given matter. After all the States are interpreting their own state's statutory law and state constitutional law. Now, if one state (TX) has enacted a similar law to another state (CA) and there is no TX case law interpreting the new statute, then the TX court may consider how CA has interpreted their similar law. But this is not binding on the TX court; it is merely guidance or has persuasive benefit for the party urging the TX court to follow it. However, once a TX Ct. of Appeals rules on the interpretation, then it does create binding precedent on the lower state court within the same jurisdiction. Now if the El Paso Ct. of Appeals rules one way and Amarillo Court of Appeals rules another way, then the lower courts within each respective TX jurisdiction are bound by that particular Ct. of Appeal's interpretation of the law. Example, a trial court in Plainview, TX is not bound by the TX court of appeals in El Paso because the Plainview case, if appealed, will be heard by the Amarillo Ct. of Appeals, so that is the court of Appeals that they follow. Now, when there is a conflict between two cts. of appeal within the state, then the State Supreme Court will hear the case on appeal in order to resolve the conflict between the two courts of appeal. Again all state courts below are bound by the decision of the State's highest court--usually referred to as the (state) supreme court.

Same things happens on the federal level. The federal district court makes a ruling. Then the case may be appealed up to the federal circuit court of appeals for that jurisdiction and the ruling by the federal circuit ct. of appeals is binding on the lower federal district courts within that same jurisdiction but not on federal courts in other jurisdiction. So for example on the interpretation of the second amendment, the circuit courts who have spoken on the subject are about evenly divided between the "collective rights" model and the "sophisticated rights model" with the federal justice department supporting for approximately 40 years the "collective rights" model.

Then the 5th circuit decided Emerson and adopted the "individual rights model" as the only circuit court to do so and the federal justice department abandoned their "collective rights" model to endorse the 5th Circuit Court interpretation. Now, since there is a conflict between one or more of the federal circuit ct. of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court could hear the question to resolve the conflict between the federal appellate courts but the Bush administration has told the U.S.S.C. that while it believes the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess firearms the Bush administration has also told "the U.S.S.C. that the Court need not test that principle now." So we currently have 3 different interpretations of the second amendments among the federal circuit court. The lower federal courts within those circuit courts are bound by the higher ruling until the U.S.S.C. rules on the matter or until the circuit ct reverse itself. Incidentally, no court reverses easily so one should not count on that happening for years after a ruling is made, then it is more a narrowing of the ruling until it the ruling is worn away.

Federal court interpret federal statute, a U.S. constitutional question and other cases of which the U.S. congress or the U.S. constitution has given them jurisdiction to hear. As such, in these matters federal law thrumps state law to the contrary and the U.S. Supreme Court being the ultimate interpreter on the U.S. constitution their ruling are binding on all state and federal courts within the United States.

Well, that is a simplified overview. Like I said entire semester long courses are devoted to the topic.

I know about the courses, Boxcarbill. They're part of why I changed my major.

Thanks for your reply. What my cause for asking that question is, specifically, how does the US court determine jurisdiction on Internet sites? Yahoo, Inc. v LIRCA sets forth that since the servers for yahoo.com were in the physical US, since the site was written in English and aimed at an American audience, primarily, that then the French laws against Third Reich memorabilia were not applicable because the First Amendment of the US superceded them (or, at least, that is how the outcome reads to me. I could be wrong).

Subtext: We're the US of A and we ain't lettin no Eur-o-peeyan Union World court tell us what we can & cain't do in our own country. We invented the internet by gawd, & we'll post anything we damn well please!

And you are a leading example of ignorance and stupidity. Keep your ignorance to yourself. This is a LAW forum, not a place to show people how stupid you are.

I would suggest you do a few google searches.

Blue ribbon project and a few others that I stumble across now and again. I just keep infrastructure alive and well. I have little interest in how that infrastructure is used. I do get excited over any thing that has even the faintest scent of censorship. In the days of my youth I was a hot blooded young idealist, now that I am a reactionary old curmedgeon, I try to hang on to some vestiges of my youthful persona. Free exchange of information is one them. throughout the ages scientist have collaborated and competed regardless of racial, ethnic, religious, geographic or ideological differences. For some of us the search for knowledge can consume us and become all that exists in our world.

Internet law in a global continium has been at best a complex and perplexing issue. because of the very nature of the internet infrastructure, just because one country outlaws a thing, another country can easily allow it. I don't know of any of the modem ursurping www.hooties&booties.com sites that are situated within the united states, but quite often the calls are carried on ATT lines. The content of some of these sites must violate obscenity or lewd and lascivious laws somewhere, but that jurisdiction must all but catch you in the act of viewing or with duly proper search warrents sieze your computer and find the images on your hard drive, be it in your overly large swap drive or saved to an encrypted folder / partition, or by recovering data that you had wiped and overwritten in your attempt to destroy the evidence. for example China and The unified Germany. In china you are likely to wish you had been taken out and shot if you are discovered to be viewing forbidden sites. There has been more hue and cry raised by the Govt of the U.S. regarding technology that has been developed that can mask or encrypt the information that you are viewing on your computer and where it truly originates from as well as to some extent its destination. This technology is used to allow Chinese dissidents to be able to access the free capitolism and democracy of the west. remember everything that passes through a computer can be intercepted and viewed, and its source and destination as well as which hand you were typing with revealed. As regards the German issue, the isp's I believe are govt run and they just censor and block and leave it at that. I don't know if it is tuetonic obediance or knowledge that their butts could wind up rotting in prison while some one proves their innocence, but the Germans don't seem to have much of an Issue with no means no. So even though laws are written, the jurisdiction of a law made within a country tends to end at the borders of the country. The united nations tends to deal with global issues but as evidenced by when Iran was intending on Doing away with the Iraqi threat, it was no, no bad idea. when the usa decided to do away with the iraqi threat, the UN was basically told to kiss off and the US did as it pleased. It is called sovreignity. The states verses the federal govt is minor league compared to between nations. I still haven't covered ignoring and living up to treaties and other forms of binding and not so binding agreement between countries i.e. North Korea and Nuclear armament. Even after poland fell nobody was believing that WWII was a possibility except the Poles. convention and treaty are but window dressing. international Diplomacy is an art form of what isn't said as much as it is what is said. What goes in one country has little binding power or authority in a nation that chooses to thumb its nose at it. Hope this helps but theory of for the hallowed halls of acadamy, reality is a school of hard knocks.

Hope I helped. i liked the earlier explanation of the court system in the U.S. compared to global issues it is a breeze.