Court Structure, Role of Precedent and Stare Decisis

Court System

Limited Jurisdiction Hear disputes on limited matters such as domestic relations, traffic violations, and civil suits with small amounts in controversy. ALL other disputes are tried in branches of a trial court of “general jurisdiction” (Those courts of general jurisdiction are called “Superior Court,” Circuit Court,” or “District Court.”)

Trial Court In most states, final decisions of a trial court may be reviewed in appellate courts at two different levels: What does that mean? A disappointed litigant may appeal a trial court judgment at the state level or if needed at the court of last resort: State Supreme Court.

Virginia Supreme Court Virginia Court System Virginia Supreme Court Court of Appeals Circuit Courts District Courts Traffic Courts Juvenile Courts Small Claims Courts Domestic Courts 11/16/2018

Federal Trials The primary federal trial courts are the United States District Courts. To appeal a litigant can go to one of the 13 “circuits” of the United States Court of Appeals. After that, if further review is needed than a litigant can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Court Structure & Stare Decisis Stare Decisis is more flexible at the higher court level Stare Decisis is less flexible on the lower courts Precedent at the lower court level is binding when the same issue is being addressed and the court that created the precedent acts a court of review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzq-x-hytJY

The lower court must either distinguish the reviewing court’s precedent or apply it as controlling authority.

What Stare Decisis does NOT do Does not require a court to follow a precedent of a coequal, autonomous courts, of lower courts within the same court system, or any courts outside of the system.

For Example: The Florida Supreme Court is not bound by the decisions of other Florida courts or by those of the California Supreme Court. The United States Court of Appeals of the First Circuit is not bound by the decisions of either the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or any United States District Court.

Limitations to Stare Decisis A court may distinguish a prior decision if it concludes that the prior decision addressed a significantly different dispute from the one now before the court. A court’s own precedent may be indistinguishable from the dispute before the court. The two limits help avoid rigidity in the law while maintaining consistency.

Precedent Inexact Science with ample room for argument Differences between two cases in the facts or in the nature of the legal claims and defenses raised by litigants are sufficiently substantial that the prior decision does not clearly dictate the resolution of the second case.

Then what do we do? The prior case may not have a clear resolution but we can use that prior case as a guide (analogous-comparable) for deciding our current case. The prior case can be used as a way to justify the same legal result in both.

Real case examples Carroll v. United States (4th Amendment) Agnello v. United States California v. Carney

Overruling Precedent A court’s own precedent, or that of a higher court within the same jurisdiction, normally is controlling if it is materially indistinguishable from the dispute now before the court. Stare Decisis is more flexible in the courts that created the precedent A court may depart from a strict application of stare decisis and refuse to follow its own precedent that otherwise would be controlling.

Overruling Continued… Changes in social and legal context Abandonment of erroneous or unworkable precedent Flexible application of Stare decisis to constitutional issues