3 ms·

I don't think that a local traffic court, in what's certainly an unpublished ruling, can create a precedent. That's not how the system works.

• catshirt 16y ago
  i presume he meant precedent more literally than legally
  • Bud 16y ago
    He might have simply meant that he didn't want to set any precedents for future rulings by himself; i.e., start handing out free passes to anyone with a smartphone.
    • catshirt 16y ago
      exactly my point.
• qeorge 16y ago
  No, that is how the system works. However, precedents can only go "downhill." From Wikipedia: "a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis Given, this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason.
  • CWuestefeld 16y ago
    this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason. Actually, that was precisely what I was saying. It's obvious to me that a local traffic court has no lower courts below it. In addition, to be a precedent, the decision needs to be published (as I understand it, but IANAL). When you think about it, this must be true: no court can follow a precedent that cannot be discovered.