So, attending the State Conference Continuing Education, the traveling "snake oil" salesman, aka, instructor cited many court cases. None from Federal Court or our State Court system.
An old premise exists: “trial courts do not set precedent”
Stare Decisis is " the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").
So what did this "snake oil" salesman do? He cited two trial court decisions from other states. Too bad he didn’t put in the time to research the law in OUR state.
Well, that's kinda true. But, it would be a mistake to only study higher level cases looking for controlling law. It is the trial courts that weigh the evidentiary matters, which are largely what surveyors are involved with, and which largely control the outcome. But yeah, if the presenter doesn't know why they are using the cases presented, and can't convey that to the audience, then it's not a very good learning experience.
Around here, trial courts don't often "publish" and explain their ruling, which makes it hard to discern why the judge ruled a certain way. There are often many issues raised and argued over at trial, only a few of which may hinge on surveyors' testimony. Although one side has to win and one side lose, you can't necessarily conclude that the survey issues carried a heavy weight (or any weight). In the judge's opinion, he might have considered opposing surveyor testimony to be a "wash", or the judge may have viewed the survey matters as a minor or insignificant issue in the case.
I have to agree with the OP that trying to make an example out of lower court rulings, especially if the judge didn't explain his/her ruling in writing, is dangerous.
Sure, but they can also be very informative and important. It depends. Ignore the trial courts at your own peril.
> Sure, but they can also be very informative and important. It depends. Ignore the trial courts at your own peril.
:good:
DDSM
All I'm saying is that if you want to study common law, especially as it relates to your state, it's better to focus on the State Supreme Court and Appeals Courts because that is where the principles of boundary law gets tested and strengthened through citations and written opinions. Trial courts tend to focus more on equity and "fairness" and, as you may know, often get overturned by Appeal Courts. Until the lower court ruling gets challenged and upheld, and a few other courts cite the ruling, it means very little in the grand scheme of things.
:good: :good:
In CA, the Superior Courts (County level trial courts) are, by statute supposed to file any judgments affecting land titles with the County Recorder. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
I've pulled cases that pertained specifically to the properties I was surveying, and I've gotten hold of a couple that were upheld on appeal. I've also seen one that said, near verbatim "Much evidence was presented at trial, and much testimony was offered. After consideration of all evidence and testimony, I find that..." the boundary was at some particular location without any further discussion of the facts.
More often though, the trial court judgment can be informative for that particular case, and indicative of how that court may view a subsequent case with similar facts.
I wouldn't use a trial court example in a presentation without also having an appellate or Supreme ruling on it as well unless it was a presentation about local issues within the jurisdiction of that court.
