John was arrested under a New Jersey statute that made it a crime to wear green shorts. John argues that a similar stature was declared unconstitutional by the California state court, so the NJ state court is required to declare NJ statute unconstitutional. John is wrong because...
1. state courts aren't bound by precedent
2. only federal courts can create binding precedent
3. out of state cases aren't binding precedent in state courts
4. more than one court has to rule a certain way before precedent is established.
I chose 3. is this correct?
I agree.
out-of state cases aren't binding precedent in stat courts.
Yes, your choice of option 3 is correct. John is wrong because out-of-state cases are generally not binding precedent in state courts. To understand why, let's break down the options:
1. State courts aren't bound by precedent: This option is incorrect because state courts are indeed bound by precedent, albeit in different ways than federal courts. State courts often follow their own prior decisions as precedent, and they may also consider and be persuaded by precedent from higher state and federal courts.
2. Only federal courts can create binding precedent: This option is incorrect because while federal courts can create binding precedent within their jurisdiction, state courts also have the power to create binding precedent within their own state jurisdiction. State court precedent can be authoritative and followed by other courts within the same state.
3. Out-of-state cases aren't binding precedent in state courts: This option is correct. In general, out-of-state cases do not have the status of binding precedent in state courts. State courts are typically only bound by decisions from higher courts within their own state or from federal courts.
4. More than one court has to rule a certain way before precedent is established: This option is incorrect because precedent can be established by a single court ruling, especially if the ruling comes from a higher court within the same jurisdiction. However, if different courts within the same jurisdiction consistently rule the same way on a certain issue over time, it can strengthen the precedent's authority.
Therefore, option 3 accurately explains why John is wrong about the NJ state court being required to declare the NJ statute unconstitutional based on a similar statute being declared unconstitutional by the California state court.