Since people continue to refer to Moore v East Cleveland in subsequent decisions, can’t it be assumed that that is considered to be the precedent, and if so, doesn’t it just take a single court to actually read it correctly to get the misinterpretation off of the table.
On a side note, what does your use of quotes around “misinterpretation” imply? Do you not agree that they are misinterpreting it, whether intentionally or otherwise? If not, why not?