Because not all cases are precedents. It depends on the court that decided the case, and the court where the case is being cited.
A decision from the highest state court on a question of state law is binding precedent on all lower state courts, but is not binding precedent on the courts in any other state, even if the statute in the other state is worded identically. That case is called “persuasive” in the other state, not a precedent.
However that state Supreme Court decision interpreting state law would be binding precedent on the federal courts in that state, and even on the Supreme Court of the United States, if a case from that state went to SCOTUS. Federal courts can’t disagree with the interpretation of state law by state courts.
And a decision from the Supreme Court of the US may not be binding precedent. For example, if a case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the US and that Court divides evenly, the appeal is dismissed but it doesn’t set a precedent. (DSYoungEsq may remember a law journal article I pointed out to him on this very issue several years ago. )
This was decades ago. The local judge was an irascible a****le and an alcoholic (Even got a DUI ticket from a rookie RCMP who wasn’t going to be intimidated by “do you know who I am?!” Back when DUI was a slap on the wrist…). What the lawyer also said was - “I have more freedom - I come to this town once or twice a year. if the judge gives out a sentence that’s excessive, I appeal - and he knows it, so it’s actually a plus when I appeal. It puts him in his place. [insert comment about appeal court] If a local lawyer has the temerity to appeal his judgement, he knows the judge will get even by giving the rest of his clients stiff sentences, so they do not dare appeal.”
May not have been the judicial council, but someone in the system keeps track of a judge’s behaviour and whether he is not up to standards.
I believe it would be. Quorum on SCOTUS is 6 justices, so a decision by 7 of them is a binding decision.
(Just speaking from general principles here. I defer to any of my learned US law-talking colleagues on this point. It certainly would be binding precedent in Canada if the Supreme Court of Canada gave a 4-3 decision.)
Is the Quorum number independent of the number of justices? What if the court is down to 5 justices-- do they just sit around and do nothing until another justice gets appointed?
Yes, Congress can change the size of SCOTUS at will. When Andrew Johnson was President, Congress passed a bill over his veto shrinking the court by one for each justice who died or retired. When he left office, they increased its size to nine again, for U.S. Grant to fill 'er up again.
)
).