View Single Post
  #27  
Old 04-25-2008, 02:39 PM
mertensv16 mertensv16 is offline
Practice Makes Perfect
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts
Though in the current #2, you suggest the use of 'case law' as if the 'case law' were somehow more important that the actual written law; with that in mind, I would have to question your sincerity in regard to desiring to accomplish #1.

A statute or constitution can always trump caselaw. That is, if a case reaches a result based upon a particular rule of decision, that rule can be changed for future cases by passing a statute or (if the case involves a point of constitutional law) by amending the constitution.

But if the issue boils down to what you think the written law means and what the courts say it means, which interpretation do you think will prevail in the judicial system? And since you're presumably going to be litigating in the judicial system, which interpretation should you expect the court to follow, especially if they've heard your interpretation many times before and rejected it every time?

The reason I cite cases is to show what the prevailing law is in certain areas. Sometimes it's not necessary; for example, if someone were to claim that a will signed in State X needs three witnesses to be valid, I could simply cite the applicable State X statute, which would reveal that it takes only two. On the other hand, if someone were to claim that since the constitution says that Congress can't lower a federal judge's salary while in office, it follows that the judge's salary isn't subject to the income tax, I would cite a couple of Supreme Court cases that hold to the contrary.

Like it or not, caselaw is part of the law, and unless you can give a court a good reason why it doesn't or shouldn't apply, it's what a court is going to follow. Maybe you can distinguish your case on the facts. Maybe you can persuade the court that the prevailing rule is outdated and shouldn't be followed in your case. If you can't do either of these, however, for Heaven's sake don't make an argument that has been continually rejected for the last 30 years and characterized as frivolous.
Reply With Quote