OT lawyers - how do state courts respond when you use precedent from another state?

quote:

---

State courts are bound by the courts of another state

---

Wut?

quote:

---

State courts are bound by the courts of another state

---

That makes no fricking sense. The only court I'm aware of that binds every state is SCOTUS.

The only other court I know that could be binding is if a case from state reached your federal appeals circuit and they set a precedent.

1) No state court is going to respond well to any recycled sovereign citizen argument

2) No lawyers do shite like that

3) That said, no court is going to be mad at you for something like "this is an unresolved question in Alabama, but the Georgia Supreme Court addressed a similar question relating to a nearly-identical statute..."

Well that’s better than what many state court judges seem to be using nowadays such as: their feelings, political ideology, nepotism, cronyism or what other people think is right/wrong.

They laugh.

quote:

---

Thanks. But using that scenario, while you can present the Georgia argument, an Alabama court can either accept it or toss it out the window?

---

Correct, although occasionally you'll have a situation where the appellate courts know there is really no guidance on a statute or issue so there is sort of standing precedent that a neighbor state's rulings will have considerable weight.

You'll see this a fair amount when one state copies another state's law and the copying state hasn't had the law on the books long enough to develop their own case law. If the law isn't controversial or the state just has shitty precedent in general (Georgia) that can go on for quite a while.

quote:

---

Been watching videos of sovereign citizens who upon getting pulled over, keep citing a case called People v. Battle, a California Court of Appeal case from 1975 and they claim it set case law that traffic infractions aren't crime. They insist it's valid even if they aren't even in California apparently.

Does it hold up? Intuitively, I think no, just curious though. .

---

Their argument doesn't hold up, like at all. Basically people vs battle is about double jeopardy/successive punishments for a related event if you were initially given an infraction, but then later the DA wanted upgrade/add charges of misdemeanor/felony.
breaking traffic rules can sometimes be an infraction, or more serious offenses can be misdemeanor/felonies, but this is irrelevant for the sov cit argument you bring up which I take as basically they dont need to identify because no crime was committed

....But they do need to identify because they already agreed to via their license. And heres the rub, by refusing to provide ID after an infraction you are giving reasonable suspicion that you are driving without a license, which is a crime.

quote:

---

Been watching videos of sovereign citizens who upon getting pulled over, keep citing a case called People v. Battle, a California Court of Appeal case from 1975 ...

---

Don't get the impression that "sovereign citizens" have a clue what they are yammering about.

quote:

---

Correct, although occasionally you'll have a situation where the appellate courts know there is really no guidance on a statute or issue so there is sort of standing precedent that a neighbor state's rulings will have considerable weight.

You'll see this a fair amount when one state copies another state's law and the copying state hasn't had the law on the books long enough to develop their own case law. If the law isn't controversial or the state just has shitty precedent in general (Georgia) that can go on for quite a while.

---

Good to know. Thanks!