It's summer time. Blue sky, a few clouds, light breeze....and you decide to go out for a morning jog like you always do when it's not raining or snowing or flooding or there's a tornado brewing.
Anyway, you're out running and dang it but (and it most always happens), you get this sharp pain in your side. I mean, those things HURT!
Have you ever gotten those sharp, side pains? I know I have and, as it turns out it is not a rare occurrence.
The problem is that those sharp pains actually have a term. They're called exercise-related transient abdominal pain, or ETAP. Around two-thirds of runners experience them every year. But unfortunately for weekend joggers everywhere, this medical term does not come with a medical solution.
Why?
Well, turns out even though side stitches are common, researchers haven't really studied them.
What??? How is it that something as common as side stitches are ignored but there is time and money to research things for which drugs were invented to prevent:
- Male/Female Impotence, or
- Hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating), or
- Restless Leg Syndrome, or
- Nail Fungus (could be toe or fingers), or
- Cosmetic Wrinkle Reduction, or
- Male Pattern Baldness, or
- Mild Anxiety for "Performance" (I'm guessing this one is sexual in nature rather than an inability to speak in public), or
- Mild Cosmetic Acne
Dang but there are a lot of things I can think of that could really use some serious like:
- Social Isolation
- Grief or Bereavement
- Procrastination (imagine a drug that could cure this? Employers everywhere would like up for that one!)
- Aging-related frailty
- Mild hearing loss (a cure-all for guys who don't hear their wives)
- Caregiver burnout (that's a big one, right there)
- Something to fix that ringing in your head (I can handle the voices, but the ringing...!)
- The fear you get when you walk into a law library
This last one is actually curable without a pill. I should know because I've helped cure thousands of people overcome their fear of law libraries (aka law library anxiety).
I can't count the number of people I've seen walk into a law library and watch the color drain from their faces as they look at all the books on shelves.
Can you say TERRIFIED?!?
But you don't have to be. How, might you ask? There are four (4) rules you need to know to help you overcome law library anxiety.
- Rule ONE: Primary Authority is that which is handed down by a governing body.
- Rule TWO: Secondary Authority is that which explains, interpret, or analyzes Primary Authority.
- Rule THREE: Mandatory Authority is that which courts MUST follow.
- Rule FOUR: Persuasive Authority is that which courts MAY follow.
So, how do these four rules work and help with library anxiety? Let's take each Rule and break them down into manageable bits.
Rule ONE: Primary Authority is that which is handed down by a governing body.
Most people hear things and immediate thing statutes and court court decisions. Yeah, but that doesn't really cover what the law is governing your situation.
Situation? What situation?!
Years ago, I helped a guy who had just been kicked out of his book club. Seems he wanted to review a book that the other members did not want to review and they kicked him out. He was angry with their decision and wanted back in.
The problem was he didn't know what law would govern book clubs.
So, under rule one, what is a governing body? A formal definition is a group of people who formulate the policy and direct the affairs of an institution. So, what we're looking at here might be something that looks like:
What are some other governing bodies not specifically related to they typical government structure?
- Residential & Community Governance
- Homeowners Association (HOA)
- Condominium Associations
- Mobile Home Park Associations
- Property & Facility Governance
- Business Improvement Districts
- Property Owners Associations
- Timeshare Associations
- Religious & Organizational Governance
- Church Boards
- Parish Councils
- Synagogue/Temple Boards
- Educational Governance
- Parent/Teacher Associations (PTA)
- School Boards
- Charter School Boards
- Recreational & Clubs Governance
- Swim Club Boards
- Tennis Club
- Private Club Boards
- Cooperative & Shared Business Governance
- Worker Cooperative Boards
- Agricultural Cooperative Boards
- Artist Cooperative Boards
- Specialized District Governance
- Special District Boards
- Water Board
- Fire Protection Boards
- Library Districts
- Parks and Recreation Districts
- Other Community Group Governance
- Neighborhood Associations (non-HOA)
- Tenant Associations
- Block Associations
See that one under Recreational & Club Governance: Private Club Boards? That's the one guy targeted. See, the problem is that guy was dealing with a book club - not a monstrously HUGE government entity.
All guy had to do was look at the rules of the tiny/virtually insignificant book club - which is/was the governing body for his book club.
I mean, why would a courts use codes/ordinances from a monstrously HUGE government structure when all it has to do is use the small/virtually insignificant local/neighborhood book clubs' own rules and procedures that govern how its members inter-relate?
Which is what the court did aaaaaaaand guy was still kicked out of the club as the book club had followed all of its procedures and guy didn't have a leg to stand on.
Summary: A governing body can be BIG (think Federal or State or County or City) or it can be small (think tennis club or book club). All that is required is that there be a semblance of established rules/procedures which must be followed by its members.
RULE TWO: Secondary Authority is that which explains, interpret, or analyzes Primary Authority.
Have you ever needed to know the definition of a word? Regardless of whether it was online or in-print, you used a dictionary to look it up.
Have you ever had to do a book report or some other paper in school? Regardless of whether it was online or in-print, you used a book(s) or articles to help you explain your position to help you write that report.
Resources other than case law/statutes are secondary authority are used to help explain how primary authority is applied, used, or interpreted.
Court use secondary authority/evidence all the time to help interpret the law when they are trying to formulate an opinion.
(State/Federal) member of congress (house/senate) use secondary authority all the time when they're looking to create laws/statutes
Been to a library (public or law) lately? The shelves are jammed packed with secondary authorities to help you explain what it is you are writing/arguing about.
The kicker between Rule 1 and Rule 2 is that you can cite to primary authorities with reckless abandon in legal documents. You use secondary authorities to help understand what's what and develop oral arguments. You DO NOT cite to secondary authority unless you want to run the risk of the judge ignoring and/or sanctioning you for citing to authorities that have NO legal authority.
True, there are attorneys who only cite to secondary authority (and I'd steer clear of them because that shows a lazy lawyer), but for my money, I'd want someone representing me who knows the difference between what qualifies as legal authority and what doesn't.
RULE THREE: Mandatory Authority is that which courts MUST follow.
Things get tricky when looking at rules three (Must) and four (May).
What does MUST mean? Defined, must is an imperative need to duty. How this works is that when looking at laws from other courts, a court MUST follow decisions/laws from it's own jurisdiction.
So, California courts MUST follow the laws/statutes handed down from the California legislature. California Superior courts MUST follow decisions handed down by the California Supreme Court and the California Appeals Courts.
Arizona courts of limited and general jurisdiction MUST follow the law statutes handed down from the Arizona legislature, and Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction (Court of Appeals and Supreme Court).
Wyoming Circuit Courts MUST follow the laws handed down by the Wyoming legislature and by the Wyoming Supreme Court, District Courts.
Texas Trial Courts MUST follow the laws handed down by the Texas legislature and by the appellate courts, and the two courts of last resort (Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals).
New York Trial Court (which include the Supreme Court, Court of Claims, Family Court, Surrogate's Court, and local courts (City, Town, and Village)) MUST follow the laws handed down by the New York legislature and the intermediate appellate courts, and the Court of Appeals (which is the highest court in New York).
See how that works. Trial courts in a specific jurisdiction (or area of control) MUST follow the laws/decisions in the specific jurisdiction.
RULE FOUR: Persuasive Authority is that which courts MAY follow.
If MUST is critical, MAY expresses permission or possibility. MAY indicates that something could happen but it is not certain. When it comes to things legal, MAY indicates allowance or consent.
So, how MAY works is Utah courts MAY use laws handed down by New York, but it doesn't have to.
Wait, what?
So, as it turns out, New York was the first state to create a law regulating the Internet. In 1990, New York passed a law amending its Penal Law § 235 to address “obscene material” and computer networks, making it a crime to disseminate obscene material to minors via a computer.
What this means is that New York, being the first, was the only real authority on the regulation of the Internet. Do you think, though, that no other states in the Union didn't have issues related to Internet regulation at that time?
Sure they did!
But even though New York had a law DIRECTLY ON THE TOPIC of Internet regulation, other courts did not have to follow it. They could, if they wanted to but weren't REQUIRED to use it. Other courts might have looked at the New York law; they might have tasted it, licked it, touched it, poked it, prodded it, provoked it, or kicked the wheels - but they didn't have to use the New York law.
So, if a Wisconsin court was looking at an issue but didn't have any laws/decisions on the books for that particular issue, it MAY look to the laws of any other jurisdiction, but it doesn't have to and could rule based on it's own belief (because I'm sure the judges in Wisconsin as just as competent as any other judge in any other jurisdiction).
Nevada courts MAY look at Oregon Court decisions but doesn't have to use them.
North Carolina courts MAY look at North Dakota court decisions but doesn't have to use them.
Florida courts MAY look at Rhode Island court decisions but doesn't have to use them.
Montana courts MAY look at South Carolina court decisions but doesn't have to use them.
Ohio courts MAY look at Mississippi Court decisions but doesn't have to use them.
So, what does "doesn't have to use them" suggest/mean? It means that courts can use other jurisdiction decisions as SECONDARY authority to help interpret their own laws/decision.
See how these rules fold in onto themselves? You do this enough times and it becomes easier to understand/apply.
Now, here's a zinger. Say a court has a decision that it uses on a particular issue and you submit a brief with a law from another jurisdiction because you think the law from the other jurisdiction/court helps to clarify the issue you are trying to argue better than what the court in your jurisdiction has on its books?
Your Judge/Court might laugh at you (in the way of sanctions) OR it might ask for clarification on why you would include a decision that is persuasive, at best.
Hey, it's could happen (and has).
Annnnnnnnnnd, that's how it all looks.
No longer do you need to have that deer in the headlights look when you walk in a law library. Sure, you might (still) be terrified to talk to a god-like visage like a law librarian, but at least you know (now) you can find your way around a law library without being scared out of your pajamas.
No comments:
Post a Comment