5 ms·

So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ?

by pankajdoharey 3y ago

zappb 3y ago
District courts don’t set precedent; appellate and supreme courts do.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  “Trial” inatead of “district”, and “supreme” is unnecessary, since in the cases where it is right in US court systems it is redundant with “appellate” and its wrong in New York, where “the Supreme Court” is one of many kinds of trial court (but where there are also appellate divisions and appellate terms of the Supreme Court which serve as intermediate appellate courts, with the ultimate appellate court—equivalent tothe Supreme Court in most other US jurisdictions—being the Court of Appeals.)
nvy 3y ago
They do, but not proactively. You have to bring a case before the court for the precedent to get considered. Lots of things that are legal/illegal are only so because they haven't been tested in court. Precedents are also specific and sometimes the details of a case make it different enough that the precedent does not apply.
staticautomatic 3y ago
I don’t think this deserves t be downvoted. It’s just a misunderstanding. What you’re thinking of is a different concept in the US legal system called res judicata or issue preclusion.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  It does deserve to be downvoted, it seems to ignore the second paragraph of the post it responds to. That’s annoying.
  - staticautomatic 3y ago
    I don’t think the parent is particularly clear about what it’s referring to or why the Apple decision would be binding. It just looks like two ships passing in the night over precedent vs estoppel.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ? I literally described how that impacts things: "The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases".
- pankajdoharey 3y ago
  Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean nothing and Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.
  - loaph 3y ago
    Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law. Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions. Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
      - GabrielTFS 3y ago
        This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment. I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering). The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.

So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ?

zappb 3y ago

District courts don’t set precedent; appellate and supreme courts do.

dragonwriter 3y ago
“Trial” inatead of “district”, and “supreme” is unnecessary, since in the cases where it is right in US court systems it is redundant with “appellate” and its wrong in New York, where “the Supreme Court” is one of many kinds of trial court (but where there are also appellate divisions and appellate terms of the Supreme Court which serve as intermediate appellate courts, with the ultimate appellate court—equivalent tothe Supreme Court in most other US jurisdictions—being the Court of Appeals.)

nvy 3y ago

They do, but not proactively. You have to bring a case before the court for the precedent to get considered. Lots of things that are legal/illegal are only so because they haven't been tested in court. Precedents are also specific and sometimes the details of a case make it different enough that the precedent does not apply.

staticautomatic 3y ago

I don’t think this deserves t be downvoted. It’s just a misunderstanding. What you’re thinking of is a different concept in the US legal system called res judicata or issue preclusion.

bee_rider 3y ago
It does deserve to be downvoted, it seems to ignore the second paragraph of the post it responds to. That’s annoying.
- staticautomatic 3y ago
  I don’t think the parent is particularly clear about what it’s referring to or why the Apple decision would be binding. It just looks like two ships passing in the night over precedent vs estoppel.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ? I literally described how that impacts things: "The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases".

pankajdoharey 3y ago
Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean nothing and Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.
- loaph 3y ago
  Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law. Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions. Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
    - GabrielTFS 3y ago
      This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment. I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering). The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.