[inquest]

"This court's decision today does not reach any errors of law suggested by petitioner. At common law, the writ of coram nobis was used to correct errors of fact."

Ah, so there's the rub. They weren't trying to correct the precedent set by the higher court. This ruling came up in discussions about whether lower courts had the power to go against legal holdings by higher courts, and this was cited as an example of a lower court doing just that. But as the above shows, the court was not doing that after all.

Thanks for the link. That was very helpful.

[Cboldt]

This ruling came up in discussions about whether lower courts had the power to go against legal holdings by higher courts, and this was cited as an example of a lower court doing just that. But as the above shows, the court was not doing that after all.

Cases are frequently misconstrued, even (maybe especially) by courts.

Marbury v. Madison is cited for the proposition that the Court can set or make law (which it can); but by "reading on" a mere two paragraphs, one cannot escape the statment by Marshall that Courts must rule in subservience to the Constitution, and to statute - and when THOSE two authorities clash, it is the Constitution that must prevail.