hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
You go to court to show damages. Both parties will have to prove their case. Believe me, this court case will set precidents.
Just a clarifying point so everyone is on the same page regarding the term "precedent". In a legal sense precedents are not set at the trial court level. The trial court is designed to determine the facts and once it does it makes a ruling that it believes is consistent with the facts determined and its interpretation of the law. The appeals court, if it accepts jurisdiction after the filing of a Notice of Appeal, determines whether the law was properly applied to the facts that were determined at the trial court level. When an appellate court renders it's Opinion, based on law and prior precedent, it may become a legal precedent for the geographical area in which that appellate court is empowered to make decisions.
An appellate court may also decide a case and issue a Memorandum Opinion in which it rules but does the ruling is not intended to set precedent. A prime example of such a situation is Bush v. Gore, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruling was "limited to the present circumstances."
This is a simplified explanation for the purpose of this message board and there are a lot of exceptions. Just be aware that common use of the word and legal use of the word are based on wholly different interpretations.