3 ms·
This is a court decision by a low level court which applies only to a single county in the state of Washington. Assuming it survives appeal, it would, at most,
by rprasad 14y ago
This is a court decision by a low level court which applies only to a single county in the state of Washington. Assuming it survives appeal, it would, at most, apply to the state of Washington.
The distinction here (at least the one discussed in the opinion) is that the court found that texts were an active communication method, i.e., like talking on the phone, not one of the traditional protected methods such as postal mail. (I do not agree with this distinction, but this is what the court reasoned.)
- Cushman 14y ago> Assuming it survives appeal, it would, at most, apply to the state of Washington. That's not completely true. A decision at a state's highest court may not be legally binding elsewhere, but it can have precedential weight in other jurisdictions where similar laws have not yet been tested. A single case in a single state could well determine the course of law throughout the country.
- rprasad 14y agoPrecedential weight has value only if there is absolutely no in-state jurisprudence on the issue. However, texts are easily analogized to other forms of communication (and indeed, that is what this judge did). Consequently, the state's jurisprudence on such other forms of communication will trump what little precedential weight this case could have.