"Persuasive precedents" are decisions that are not binding on a court hearing a similar case, but which contain compelling legal reasoning or logic that the court finds convincing (persuasive) enough to apply to the case at bar.
For example, a US District Court judge may agree with a decision made in a comparable state court case, adopt the reasoning, and cite the first case in the opinion of the second case.
Only appellate courts with jurisdiction over a lower court may creating binding precedents (decisions that must be followed); a court may choose to follow a non-binding precedent that doesn't conflict with a binding precedent or law. These are commonly referred to as "persuasive precedents."
Technically no, because all states have autonomous jurisdiction. A US District Court decision is persuasive authority over a state court. A US District Court is a federal court, not a state court. A state supreme court decision however, is binding authority on a state appeals court level, and a trial court decision in that state would still be persuasive because its from a lower court. The decision from the Virginia Court of Appeals, however, becomes a binding authority over the state court.
If a state court declares a state law unconstitutional, the state will probably appeal the case to the state supreme court. If a state court declares a federal law unconstitutional, the losing party in the case will appeal the decision in the federal courts. The case could ultimately be heard by the US Supreme Court; however, if a lower court reverses the state court's decision and either the appropriate US Court of Appeals Circuit Court or US Supreme Court decline to consider the case, the decision of the lower federal court would be final. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality.
They are both important, but the federal courts wield more power, as they can overrule a lower, state court's decision.
The legal system will decide. It is not a decision for the public.
That depends on the case. Often, the state supreme court is the end of the road for a case, making the decision of the state supreme court final and binding. Sometimes cases involved federal questions (issues arising under the US Constitution or federal law) that allow them to be appealed to the US Supreme Court. If the US Supreme Court hears such a case, it may affirm or overturn the state supreme court decision.
A+ : McCulloch vs. Maryland
all the court systems are interlinked, but the state courts make their own decision without input from federal courts
McCulloch v. Maryland
No. State courts do not have jurisdiction over one another. For instance, a Maryland state court's decision is not binding on a Pennsylvania state court and vice versa. Likewise, a Pennsylvania court lacks the jurisdiction to overturn any state case law from Maryland. Federal courts, however, do have the power to overturn state court decisions in many (but not all) instances.
You need to provide some details regarding the situation. Family court matters rarely reach the Supreme Court (state or federal). However, if a case reached that level and the Supreme Court rendered a decision it could not be 'superseded' by a family court level judgment in the state affected by the decision.
No The above answere is wrong. State courts can decide issues of federal law, but they are only persuasive authority, since the Federal courts are not required to follow those decisions.
Most federal cases begin in the district courts.