Want this question answered?
Earlier cases can be cited as precedent in later cases, either binding or advisory.
Yes. Griswold was specifically cited by the majority as part of a line of cases establishing a constitutional right of privacy, which was key to the main holding of Roe (see page 153 of opinion).
"Other cases cited by the Court do not, as implied, follow the McReynolds reasonableness doctrine. West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, clearly rejecting the ' reasonableness test, held that the Fourteenth Amendment made the First applicable to the states." this is the full answer the other guy was just lazy and now since I wrote this I know why
Yes. All published opinions (majority, concurring, dissenting, etc.) except per curiam (unsigned opinions) may be cited as precedent. The US Supreme Court's official "opinion of the Court" (usually the majority decision) supersedes all lower court opinions, and sets binding precedent which both federal and state courts* are supposed to follow under the doctrine of stare decisis.* US Supreme Court decisions apply to state courts if they involve incorporated parts of the US Constitution, or federal laws that apply to (or within) the states.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
If the Federal Court precedent is applicable to your situation it can be cited - HOWEVER - although they may consider it, it does NOT mean that it would be binding on them.
Dalton is credited for his expanding and formulating the modern atomic theory, but it was Jouseph Louis Proust and Antoine Lavoisier who are cited as initially discovering it.
All published opinions (majority, concurring, dissenting, etc.) except per curiam (unsigned opinions) may be cited as precedent. Supreme Court opinions supersede all lower court opinions, and set binding precedents which both federal and state courts* are supposed to adhere to under the doctrine of stare decisis.* US Supreme Court decisions only apply to state courts if they involve incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights or other applicable amendments.
"Other cases cited by the court do not, as implied, follow the McRenolds reasonableness doctrine. West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, clearly rejecting the 'reasonable' test, held that the fourteenth Amendment made the first Applicable to the States"
You could have a legal decision without an explanation, but the explanations are important because they become part of legal precedent and can be cited in future legal arguments.
You could have a legal decision without an explanation, but the explanations are important because they become part of legal precedent and can be cited in future legal arguments.
No. An interim order is intended to be temporary, until the final ruling is made, and cannot be used as a precedent. If the final decision is made Per Curiam (unsigned by the Court), it can't be used as a precedent, either. Only a final, signed decision with no restrictions (such as in Bush v. Gore, (2000), where the Court narrowly applied their ruling to the instant case only) can be cited in case law.
Critics of the decisions cited the fact that these practices had a long history in the United States, and were a part of public education during the period when the Founders had written the Constitution.