California state law wth.

im not sure whether a ca supreme court decision is binding on all lower ca courts, just as a 9th circuit decision is not necessarily binding on all lower courts.

a decision by the ca supreme court would be held as a "final" decision in that particular case, and perhaps citeable, but it could still be appealed, up to the scotus if they chose to hear the case.

i did a little research on this matter (re: 9th circuit), but didn't look to deep in to ca supreme court decisions and their overall authority with regard to remaining lower courts.

i would be interested to know exactly what authority each higher court possesses over the preceding decisions and the application to other cases.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
even appellate decisions, like the 9th circuit, are not considered case law. though citeable, they are "persuasive opinion", and are not necessarily binding in lower courts.

afaik, only the scotus creates nationally binding case law.
Click to expand...

Mostly correct, but somewhat misleading.

Yes, only the US Supreme Court creates nationally binding case law, but that applies to federal questions, such as federal statutes and the US Constitution.

The California supreme court creates binding case law as to California law, and even the US Supreme Court won't question what any state supreme court has said about its state law. Since the Penal Code is state law, the California supreme court is the final and binding arbiter as to what the Penal Code means.

In the absence of a California supreme court decision, the opinions of a California court of appeal are binding on all trial courts in California. Thus "appellate decisions" from a state court of appeal are not simply "persuasive." It is correct, however, that the holdings of the 9th Circuit on questions of state law are not binding on the state courts.

But all published appellate opinions are considered case law. Whether they are binding (because they come from a higher court in the same judicial system) or not (because they don't come from a higher court in the same judicial system), they are case law.
 
I'm very thankful for the classes I was taking back then. I was a criminology major and had a prof that had been an attorney, DA, and judge who said he would have taken my case if he hadn't renewed his bar card. I'm very thankful for the crim classes I took because they taught me my rights.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
im not sure whether a ca supreme court decision is binding on all lower ca courts, just as a 9th circuit decision is not necessarily binding on all lower courts.

a decision by the ca supreme court would be held as a "final" decision in that particular case, and perhaps citeable, but it could still be appealed, up to the scotus if they chose to hear the case.

i did a little research on this matter (re: 9th circuit), but didn't look to deep in to ca supreme court decisions and their overall authority with regard to remaining lower courts.

i would be interested to know exactly what authority each higher court possesses over the preceding decisions and the application to other cases.
Click to expand...

Yes, a CA supreme court decision is binding on all lower CA courts.

A decision by a state court that does not involve a federal question is not appealable to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court early on established that they will not hear such cases. That is one of the principles of federalism. The state supreme courts are supreme as to questions of state law.

As I mentioned in a preceding post, each inferior court in a judicial system is bound by the decisions of a superior court. In CA, a court of appeal decision is binding outside its district if there is no conflicting court of appeal decision, and one court of appeal is not bound by the decision of another (co-equal) court of appeal.

In the federal system, a federal circuit court of appeals decision is binding on all trial courts in that circuit. A federal circuit court of appeals decision from a different circuit is persuasive authority and is not binding on the trial courts outside the circuit. (This is one area in which the federal and CA systems differ.) And one federal court of appeals is not bound by the decision of another (co-equal) court of appeals.
 
thx for clearing that up for us swedge.

very much appreciated.


at least i think its cleared up, i have to read it again....
 
Well, I have answers, and I prefer to give them before I know what the questions are.:D

Yes.

No.

Maybe so.

Apply as needed.
 
I haven't read about these issues in about 30 years so I'm sorry to say that my recollection is very general and I occasionally use vague terminology. It's an interesting subject.

One thing to remember is that binding precedent isn't always as binding as we might think it should be. If a trial court doesn't like what one would normally consider a controlling decision of a higher court, trial courts can come up with some pretty creative bases on which to distinguish the precedent and thereby not follow it. A remedy is to appeal but unfortunately that's a pretty expensive and time-consuming process.

DancesWithKnives
 
Charlie Mike said:
The judge threw out the case because no law had been broken.
Click to expand...
Too bad that you didn't pursue a civil lawsuit against the university and their police department for false arrest, false imprisonment, public humiliation caused by your arrest, etc. Perhaps you could have recovered the three grand that you spent on your legal defense and then some on top of that for your troubles.
 
TOM1960 said:
Too bad that you didn't pursue a civil lawsuit against the university and their police department for false arrest, false imprisonment, public humiliation caused by your arrest, etc. Perhaps you could have recovered the three grand that you spent on your legal defense and then some on top of that for your troubles.
Click to expand...

If you would advance the $100,000 in legal fees that it would cost, I am sure that Charlie Mike would gladly split his winnings with you.
 
The kinds of cases for which contingent fee lawyers are looking are those with potentially big damages, a strong probability of liability, and deep pockets on the other side. For example, if a drunk Exxon tanker truck driver crashed and rendered some folks quadriplegic, the contingent fee lawyers would be lining up. For a case in which the defendant did not suffer severe damages and liability is not clear, you will have a very hard time finding a contingent fee lawyer willing to consider the claim.

DancesWithKnives
 
DWK2 said:
The kinds of cases for which contingent fee lawyers are looking are those with potentially big damages, a strong probability of liability, and deep pockets on the other side. For example, if a drunk Exxon tanker truck driver crashed and rendered some folks quadriplegic, the contingent fee lawyers would be lining up. For a case in which the defendant did not suffer severe damages and liability is not clear, you will have a very hard time finding a contingent fee lawyer willing to consider the claim.

DancesWithKnives
Click to expand...

That is what my mother and I were told as well.
 
Charlie Mike said:
That is what my mother and I were told as well.
Click to expand...
A guy that I know was arrested and charged with theft, based upon false allegations. As in your case, the cops were dickheads and he spent almost $7K defending himself against a bull**** charge. After a jury trial, he was found not guilty. He reimbursed himself by under-paying his state income taxes (he is self-employed) until he recovered the $7K. I don't recommend breaking any kind of law (tax or otherwise), but personally I think that he was justified. He simply made himself whole financially once again. After that, he moved out of state. Charlie Mike, you could try to sue in small claims court, if you are still within statute of limitations. The filing fees are low and you represent yourself.
 
DEXIX_five-oh said:
Thats unacceptable! what have we let this state become?!
Click to expand...

I'm not at all happy with the direction that Cali is headed. Our state is broke! And how will they gain their funding?...why the get it from us somehow in various methods. IMO knife laws should be a lot simpler than they currently are.
 
Smebbin said:
I'm not at all happy with the direction that Cali is headed. Our state is broke! And how will they gain their funding?...why the get it from us somehow in various methods. IMO knife laws should be a lot simpler than they currently are.
Click to expand...

I say we should legalize marijuana and tax it HEAVILY to get us out of this debt.


Oh and I volunteer at my local police department and many of the officers don't know their laws so they could come up to you and say "hey, that blade is too large." and try to confiscate it or something of that nature.
 
Welcome to Bladeforums!

The problem with taxing something really heavily is that you can create a black market. However, a tax at some level would generate good income without being high enough to produce a big black market.

I agree about the lack of knife law knowledge among some law enforcement forces.

Thanks for the contribution.

DancesWithKnives
 
Last edited:
I agree on taxing the dope. I'm a patient myself. As far as knife laws, I worked in a dept that later arrested me (charges were later dropped) and I agree. As long as DAs are on a merit based system as far as convictions, this will continue.
 
Just a update/twist on the law.

While carrying a folding knife (any knife) K-12 is prohibited,
I ran into a problem on a college campus the other day. They
said they have K-12 classes on campus (they train teachers)
and therefore the law applies on this (and most) college campus.
Not sure if this is true or not, BUT the cost of defense as pointed out
above is prohibitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top