[atlaw]

Your statement was (since you seem to have forgotten): Jones' opinion has absolutely no relevance to any future case; even within the same district.

So I guess all those Fed. Supp.'s in the library are just useless now. I'll spread the word.

[Right Wing Professor]

So I guess all those Fed. Supp.'s in the library are just useless now. I'll spread the word.

One way that the law resembles evolution, is that complete cluelessness about the subject seldom inhibits people from having a strong opinion. :-)

[connectthedots]

So I guess all those Fed. Supp.'s in the library are just useless now. I'll spread the word.

I didn't say they were useless. I said they weren't binding on any other court. Maybe you should brush up on the principles of construction before commenting on my posts.

Unless a particular reasoning of a case published in the Fed. Supp. is adopted by reference in a US Circuit opinion, it is not binding.

The Fed. Supp.s can be useful when looking for legal reasoning in support of another case. Any claim that it has precedential value is very misleading. Are you really so ignorant that you think otherwise?

You must certainly know that a case published in the Fed, Supp. is not binding on a US Circuit Court.

I don't care if you are a lawyer, because I know lots of lawyers who are corrupt or incompetent; judges, too.