Replies

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.

I said they weren't binding on any other court.

Nah.

You said Jones' opinion has absolutely no relevance to any future case; even within the same district

Heck of a difference.

Once again, your statement was (since you now seem to be feigning complete amnesia): Jones' opinion has absolutely no relevance to any future case; even within the same district.

This statement is pure hogwash.

And now you also state: Any claim that it has precedential value is very misleading.

Misleading how? Are you suggesting that federal circuit courts do not cite, rely upon, refer to, reason from, or otherwise make precedential use of district court opinions? Or is it that you simply don't know the scope, use, and permutations of precedents?