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 obvi

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.