legal Free Legal Advice

[bokam]

niceguy,

 

for additionl refernce re: dual citizenship, check out Republic Act 9255, Citizn Retention Act of 2003.

[Macy]

for the group... since you do not have a so-called Lounge for the not-so-serious messages....

 

The Stella Awards

The "Stella" awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. Stella Liebeck is the 81 year old lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds. This case inspired an annual award: The "Stella" Award - for the most frivolous lawsuits in the U. S.

 

The following are this year's candidates:

 

1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little brat was Ms. Robertson's son.

 

2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.

 

3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars.

 

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

 

5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

 

6. December 1997: Kara Alton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

 

And the winner is:

Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000 Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him

in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnie. (Winnebago actually changed their handbooks on the back of their court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles).

[younghermit]

niceguy,

 

for additionl refernce re: dual citizenship, check out Republic Act 9255, Citizn Retention Act of 2003.

Bokam, I think you are referring to RA 9225. However, I don't think that it applies in this case. It only applies to those natural born Filipinos who got naturalized in other countries.

[-=extreme=-]

Damn, you're right!!! I downloaded the latest driver and it worked!!!

 

Now, one more thing: I used a pirated XP os , now I got 15 days left to activate it. Will i lose everything here if I dont activate it? (obviously, I can't activate it cause its an illegal copy).

I think you got a pirated copy of windows xp retail that needs activation, you need to get the Corporate version that doesn't need any activation. you search for a crack/patch for retail that will override your activation.

[bokam]

Younghermit,

 

yup, ur corect dat it doesnt aply directly to d case hence d phrase "additional" reference on dual citizenship.

[dj_flip03]

menime & extreme - Damn those vendors!!! They didnt tell me anything about that. I'm using WinXP Home Edition. If I buy the corporate edition and use it, am I gonna start from scratch again?

[Chi-Chi]

Which part do you not understand?

 

Let's try to directly address the problem:

 

Short answer. (assuming that the jurisdiction adopts the principle of stare decisis)

1.) If P. v. Clarke is decided by the highest court- it is a binding precedent. Then all courts in the future from the lowest to the highest will be bound to follow it in so far as it is applicable.

2.) If P. v. Clarke is decided by any lower court (other than the highest court) it will only have a persuasive effect (not binding, but maybe adopted) with respect to all the courts of the land, until the Highest Court  makes a definite ruling thereon.

The degree of persuasiveness is greater depending on the level of the court which decided it. Hence, a court of appeals decision will be more persuasive than a decision issued by the lowest court of the land.

 

Another Analysis part:

P v. Clarke is a decided case right?

The facts however do not disclose which Court have issued the FINAL Ruling on the case. Take note that even decisions of lower courts can become final for failure t file the necessary appeal during a definite period.

 

So if P. v. Clarke decided by the Highest Court of the Land (I don't know which Court in NZ is that but here in RP its the Supreme Court), then it becomes a BINDING PRECEDENT if the jurisdiction adopts the principle of stare decisis.

If the jurisdiction does not follow stare decisis, the case (P. v. Clarke) can not be used in other cases, in other words, not binding nor even persuasive.

Lower Courts can not disregard BINDING PRECEDENTS, and they have to follow it for such cases have the force of law or they would risk being overturned by a higher court on appeal. Only the Highest Court can overturn such Binding Precedents.

 

Let us now assume that NZ follows stare decisis (otherwise, further discussion would be pointless)

Now if P. v. Clarke was decided by Courts other than the Highest Court of the Land, then it is still a precedent (because it was decided at an earlier time) but it is NOT a BINDING PRECEDENT. This means that the reasons therein (in the case of Clarke) only have a Persuasive nature, which the Courts can adopt or disregard.

 

Now all the above, applies only to the "Doctrines" (rules of law) enunciated by the Case - that is the subject matter which the case intends to address. So in our example P. v. Clarke deals with "theft" and "injuring with intent", so it will apply to:

1.) All cases with facts similar to P. v. Clarke

2.) Theft cases with "injuring with intent" in so far as the reasoning in P. v. Clarke is applicable.

I somehow understand... so u mean persuasive ung court of appeal sa ibang cases similar to this case that's held sa court of appeal and below.. kasi kung sa supreme court, it means na kailangan binding kasi big cases un, somehow changing of laws na un. Am i right somehow?

 

Here's the situation to be more specific.

 

R v Clarke is a case that sentenced clarke of theft, injuring with intent and home invasion.

 

Clarke appealed to the Court of Appeal and his appeal was accepted, his sentence became theft and injuring with intent only..

 

Now here's the ques..

R v Clarke is a precedent. As such, indicate whether it is binding or persuasive on the following Courts in a similar case:

 

a) The High Court

The Supreme Court

c) District Courts

d) The Court of Appeal

 

Sorry guys.. super nahihilo lang talgaa ako I sound dumb i know but id rather than not know the answers

Edited August 8, 2004 by nzchick

[menime]

menime & extreme - Damn those vendors!!! They didnt tell me anything about that. I'm using WinXP Home Edition. If I buy the corporate edition and use it, am I gonna start from scratch again?

It would be better to start from scratch, but i guess you can upgrade your existing os from home edition to xp pro, you wouldn't have to change anything if it works but havent tried it myself though.

[JUPITER]

Use Spybot Search and Destroy. Much better than adaware.

 

or if u are sick of viruses, buy a Mac. or my Apple iBook running on OS X. hehhee

[dj_flip03]

It would be better to start from scratch, but i guess you can upgrade your existing os from home edition to xp pro, you wouldn't have to change anything if it works but havent tried it myself though.

I guess I have no choice but to try it, huh? Well, Hope this will be my last problem. Thanks a lot, dude! :cool:

[KAPRE33]

helpppppppppp!!!! kelangan ko tulong sa Visual basic sino pede tumulong sa akin??????

[NoX]

or if u are sick of viruses, buy a Mac. or my Apple iBook running on OS X. hehhee

i'll amend this statement...

 

or if u are sick of viruses and have the money, buy a Mac. or my Apple iBook running on OS X.

[bher2]

yuP? anong problem mo abt vb? dotnet ba?

[younghermit]

xxx

Here's the situation to be more specific.

 

R v Clarke is a case that sentenced clarke of theft, injuring with intent and home invasion.

 

Clarke appealed to the Court of Appeal and his appeal was accepted, his sentence became theft and injuring with intent only..

 

Now here's the ques..

R v Clarke is a precedent. As such, indicate whether it is binding or persuasive on the following Courts in a similar case:

 

a) The High Court

The Supreme Court

c) District Courts

d) The Court of Appeal

 

Sorry guys.. super nahihilo lang talgaa ako I sound dumb i know but id rather than not know the answers

From what I can glean from the facts that you stated, R v Clarke is a case that is

decided by the lower court, and affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.

Furthermore, R. v Clarke involves the conviction of Clarke of 3 separate crimes namely: theft, injuring with intent and home invasions.

 

Now before I make definite answers I'd like to state some uncertainties that would affect my answers.

First, I don't know the difference between the Supreme Court and the High Court in your example. Here in the Philippines, we only have the Supreme Court so it's up to you to determine the applicability of my answers with respect to the High Court.

 

Second, the wording of the question really is confusing so there is no need for you to be apologetic and say that you "sound dumb." All I can offer you is my honest and educated opinion on the matter(or guess?) since I'm no expert on law (I'm not even a lawyer yet) and more particularly on NZ law.

 

Now, for my answers, I've come to the conclusion that R v Clarke refers NOT to the original case decided by the lower court or district court but to the case decided

by the Court of Appeals because that is the only time the decision in our example achieves finality.

 

Since R. V Clarke is decided by the CA (Court of Appeals), which is not the highest court of the land, it therefore does not have a "binding effect" based on the principle of stare decisis. Hence it is not a binding precedent but can only be persuasive to ALL the courts within the land. The level of persuasiveness however differs as you go higher in the judiciary. The case is most persuasive on the lower courts and the Court of Appeals. It is also persuasive with respect to the Supreme Court until the latter adopts it in a subsequent decision.

[totoybola]

For academic discussion only: assume that the Supreme Court affirms a Court of Appeals decision by way of a minute resolution (the one-paragraph type of decision which does not discuss the facts and/or law involving a case). Now, does that affirmation by the SC have binding effect? Why or why not?

 

Curious lang sa sagot.