Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
I was trying to say that Scalia's influence on the Apple case was insignificant. Or did the prosecution use one of Scalia's previous minority opinions when they we're presenting their case?
Once a precedent is set, don't the future courts consider the precedent, so an appeal would need to be on some other aspect of the law?
In case it isn't apparent, IANAL.  |
I used Scalia as an example of a judge whose dissents were very influential, not as an example of a dissent that was influential in this specific case.
In theory, once a precedent is set, then it is suppose to bind the lower courts until it is overturned. In reality, various judges will try to evade the precedence by trying to claim that the precedence doesn't apply in a specific case. One sees this going on right now in the court system with regards to gun control. Every so often, you might see a judge defy the superior court and get slapped down. It's rarely quite so blatant, but it happens sometimes.
I would point out that cases would never be overturned if someone didn't challenge the ruling. For example the Leegin decision overturned a precedent that was set back close to a century before.