Postby Jay Vail » Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:19 am
David,
I must reiterate, a single district court opinion does not “establish” the law on any subject. A district court fashions a legal rule, when none perhaps existed to address a novel legal situation, and applies the rule to reach a result that affects the parties.
That legal rule is the law for the parties but not necessarily for anyone else. This is because the holdings of a federal district court are binding on no one but the parties. Other judges are free to adopt or reject the holdings of other district court judges, and they often do, even when they are judges sitting on the same court. I have had that happen to me more than once.
The law for a particular jurisdiction is only established when the circuit court of appeals (when you’re in the federal system) or an intermediate state appellate court announces and applies a legal proposition as part of its holding. If you want to see how that works involving use of a federal district court opinion, read Horne v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D 1002 (Fla. 1st DCA April 18, 2005), a case I recently handled. In Horne, the 1st DCA relied in part on a federal district court opinion to adopt the rule that a former agency head was not subject to deposition absent the demonstration of extraordinary circumstances. However, you will note that the court did not rely solely on that opinion but also on the opinion of another state supreme court. The law, of course, is also established when the Supreme Court does the same thing. You must be careful to distinguish legal propositions that form part of the holding from those which are dicta, portions of an opinion that do not contribute to the reasoning leading to the holding. Many lawyers make the mistake of citing a case for dictum rather than the holding.
On another point, Bridgeman will not be “overturned” because it is no longer appealable, since the case was decided some years ago. What you apparently mean is that other courts are unlikely to reach a different result or to apply a different rule than that followed in Bridgemn. Whether they are or not is not a matter that can be so easily predicted. You will be surprised what judges will do. They often disagree on what seem like simple, open and shut propositions, which is why we have appellate courts.
Thus, you are taking a chance when you rely on just the opinion of a district court. Sometimes you have to do that, when that’s all the authority you can find. But it is a slender reed on which to rest a legal position when losing may entail a considerable loss of money.
Finally, you cannot draw any conclusions from the fact that the loser did not appeal. Litigants decide not to appeal for many reasons other than a judgment about the likelihood of success. A judgment about the chance of reversal is certainly one of them, and I have turned down cases that I thought were dogs. But litigants also do not pursue appeals because they haven’t got enough money (civil appeals can cost between $50,000-$100,000 today), because they settle or simply because they’re tired of fighting.
Warm regards,
J
