Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] frizzi



Not correct. Thre are areas of law where the Illinois Supreme Court has explicitly refused to follow precedent set by the Federal Seventh Circuit (which includes Illinois) Court of appeals, where Illinois was not a party to the federal decision. That's the meaning of federalism!
Regards.
Jack

"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Fri, 19 Aug 2011, Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 4:38 PM -0500 8/19/11, Jack Uretsky wrote:

States are not obliged to follow, or agree with, federal court decisions
in matters that do not involve the parrticular states as parties.

I'm not an attorney, so I bow to your experience, but my
understanding is that this rule applies only to district court cases.
When it gets to the appeals level, then the decisions apply within
the appeals court's jurisdiction, and when the supremes rule, then it
applies to everyone--at least to everyone to whom the ruling is
relevant.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

It isn't easy being green.

--Kermit Lagrenouille
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l