Sample Use of Precedent

Congress or a state legislature (the legislative branch) creates laws (called statutes), which are enforced by the President or the Governor (the executive branch). The job of the courts (the judicial branch) is to interpret those laws and make sure they are enforced fairly. The court is responsible for making sure the law does not violate the Constitution (both federal and state constitutions). In other words, did Congress exceed its authority in creating the law?

The same is true for administrative law (regulations passed by agencies such as the FCC or FTC or the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). In these cases, the courts make sure the agency did not exceed the authority of the legislature (which created the agency) AND did not exceed the Constitution (state or federal). While there are different names for each level of analysis, the process is basically the same.

As discussed in the textbook, most cases begin in a trial court. The trial court has two major tasks:

Determine the facts of the case
Apply the law to the facts

To determine the facts, the judge or jury listens to testimony from witnesses and examines the evidence and then decides what are the facts (did she hit him with a hammer?). Once the jury determines the facts, it then applies the law to those facts (is this murder, an accident, or self defense?). Either side can APPEAL the case to an appellate court if they think the trial court did not follow the correct trial procedures or did not apply the law correctly. However, unless there is NEW evidence, it is difficult to appeal the facts (whichever version of the facts the jury believes becomes the truth even if the jury is mistaken).

All of the levels of analysis rely on precedents. For example, assume Congress passes a law banning loudspeakers in public parks. The court will decide whether Congress has that authority or if it violates your First Amendment rights. Assume that the court upholds the law (in other words, the law is VALID and Congress DOES have the right to create that law). This creates a precedent. Ten years later, Congress passes a new law banning cell phones in public parks. When the court analyzes the cell phone law, it will look at the earlier case about loudspeakers to see if that case offers guidance. The court will look at the similarities and differences in the laws AND in the facts of each case. The court will then decide if it is appropriate to accept the precedent (the ruling in the first case) or distinguish the case (saying there are important differences in either the facts or the laws so the court is not going to base its decision in the new case on what it decided in the old case).

Note that a court in California does not have to follow the precedent created by a court in Pennsylvania even if the laws and the facts are identical. Courts only have to follow precedents from higher courts that have jurisdiction over their region. Here is a fictional example to help you understand the basics of the legal system:

Suzy Q. v. State of Pennsylvania

Law: No motor vehicles are allowed on the sidewalk
Case: Suzy gets a ticket for riding a moped on the sidewalk

Trial (judge or jury)

Determine the facts: Did Suzy ride on the sidewalk?

Witness 1: yes
Witness 2: no
Witness 3: no—but testimony not allowed in trial (this witness was wearing only one contact lens)

Jury decides: YES. Suzy rode her moped on the sidewalk. Note that this now becomes an accepted FACT even if the witnesses were wrong and Suzy was never on the sidewalk!

Apply the law: Did Suzy violate the statute?

Test: (1) riding on the sidewalk (2) in a motor vehicle

Yes. Suzy rode on sidewalk (jury said yes, so it is now an accepted fact)
Is a moped a motor vehicle?

What did the legislature mean by motor vehicle: cars and trucks only? OR any object with wheels and a motor? Judge decides that a moped IS a motor vehicle. This is a legal question, rather than a factual question, so it is up to the judge to decide, not the jury. Therefore Suzy is guilty.

Suzy APPEALS to the appellate court

Suzy cannot appeal the facts as determined by the jury, but she can appeal (1) if the procedures were followed correctly, and (2) whether the law was applied correctly. Suzy's lawyer argues that:

Judge was wrong to exclude the third witness from testifying (procedural error)
Judge was wrong to decide a moped is a motor vehicle (applied the law incorrectly)

These are legal questions that the appeals court has to answer. The appeals court essentially has three choices:

Appeals court AFFIRMS the lower court's ruling (judge was right to exclude the witness and judge was right to say a moped is a motor vehicle, therefore Suzy is guilty)
Appeals court REVERSES the lower court's ruling (moped is not a motor vehicle, Suzy is innocent)
Appeals court REMANDS the case. Judge should have allowed jury to hear the 3rd witness: send it back to the trial court and let a new jury hear all the witnesses. The new jury may still decide that Suzy rode on the sidewalk even after hearing from all three witnesses. So the ultimate outcome may still be the same (Suzy is guilty). But if the new jury decides that Suzy never rode on the sidewalk, then she is innocent.

Note: The appeals court can say the trial court got one question right but the other question wrong. So the court could say that a moped is a motor vehicle, but the judge should have allowed the third witness (in which case the case is remanded for a new trial). OR the appeals court could say that a moped is NOT a motor vehicle, in which case it doesn't matter about the witness since even if Suzy was on the sidewalk, she didn't violate the law.

Appellate rulings creates precedents: Assume the appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling. This creates two precedents that can be used in future cases:

okay for a judge to exclude a witness with only one contact lens
a moped is a motor vehicle

Now in future cases, judges can exclude witnesses with one contact lens and in future cases, a moped will be considered a motor vehicle.

Normally, the appeals court will explain its reasoning in the court's opinion. The opinion helps future courts figure out when they should apply the precedent. Here is an excerpt from the fictional appeals court's opinion:

The trial court was correct in concluding that a moped is a motor vehicle for the purpose of this statute. In the legislative committee report that accompanied the bill (which became the law), the committee wrote. "The purpose of this law is to protect pedestrians from injury caused by fast moving motorized vehicles. These vehicles often have substantial mass, since they are usually made out of steel, and can travel at a high rate of speed."

The moped has a 10 hp engine and weighs 75 lbs. Furthermore, similar models can attain speeds of 20-25 mph. It seems clear that the legislature meant to include vehicles such as the moped in question in this case. While it is true that the moped has very effective brakes and highly controlled steering, we believe it still poses a substantial risk to safety when used on a sidewalk. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

New Case: David D. v. State of Pennsylvania

Dave gets a ticket for riding a motorized skateboard on sidewalk. The skateboard has a 5 hp engine and can travel up to 15 mph. Both sides agree he rode on the sidewalk (no dispute about the facts). Therefore, the only job is to apply the law—SUMMARY judgment by a judge.

Is a motorized skateboard a motor vehicle? What are the similarities between the moped in the first case and the skateboard in the second case? What are the differences? Based on the appeals court’s decision in the first case, do you think a skateboard should be considered a motor vehicle for the purpose of this law?

For most cases there are some precedents that support a "yes" answer to the legal question and other precedents that support a "no" answer. The job of lawyers on each side is to convince the court to follow the precedents that support their side and ignore the precedents that support the other side!