4

Do federal court rulings (non-appeal) function as estoppel or persuasive authority for them to be cited as authorities in state court civil complaints when the question at stake relates to state laws?

Improve this question
6
  • 3
    FWIW, it is not generally necessary to cite to case law in a state law complaint, although it isn't terribly harmful to do so.
    – ohwilleke
    Oct 7, 2021 at 2:25
  • Not terribly harmful still sounds very much like harmful overall; what is the reason for that?
    – kisspuska
    Oct 7, 2021 at 11:32
  • 1
    @kisspuska IANAL so I could only guess but I speculate that if you have one page of point spread over 100 pages of non-point then your audience will miss the point.
    – emory
    Oct 7, 2021 at 14:11
  • 2
    @kisspuska Historically, under "Field Code" pleading it was forbidden to cite to law in a Complaint. Citations to law still generally aren't required and are considered bad form by many jurists dating back to that tradition. A complaint is a statement of facts giving rise to a claim for relief and will only rarely require identification of a particular legal basis for it. It isn't a brief.
    – ohwilleke
    Oct 7, 2021 at 16:49
  • @ohwilleke I see. Thank you!
    – kisspuska
    Oct 8, 2021 at 1:19

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7

That depends what the issue is. On constitutional issues, and on issues of federal law (which do come up in state cases) , they are binding precedent, at least in that circuit for an appeals court opinion, and in the whole US for a Supreme court opinion. District court opinions are not generally binding unless upheld on appeal. On matters of state law, the state's own highest court is the final word, but a federal opinion could be at least as persuasive as one from a different state.

to the best of my understanding one does not use the term "estoppel" to describe the effect of a previous judgement by a different court. If it is in the same case and not on appeal, the term is Res judicata ("A thing (already) judged"). If it is a general matter of adhering to clear precedent, the term Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided.” ) would be used.

Improve this answer
6
  • Thank you! I clarified the question if this changes anything
    – kisspuska
    Oct 7, 2021 at 1:01
  • 1
    @kisspuska Thanks but it did not really make a difference in this case. See my edited answer on terminology.
    – David Siegel
    Oct 7, 2021 at 1:05
  • Thank you for clearing it up for me!
    – kisspuska
    Oct 7, 2021 at 1:39
  • 1
    FWIW, if the defendant in the cited federal case and the current case are the same, but the Plaintiffs are different it could also be collateral estoppel (i.e. issue preclusion) as to an identical issue decided against the defendant in the federal case.
    – ohwilleke
    Oct 7, 2021 at 2:25
  • 2
    The answer to this question is actually quite unsettled. In California, state courts say that Ninth Circuit decisions are merely persuasive, though the Ninth Circuit itself insists its decisions are binding.
    – bdb484
    Oct 7, 2021 at 3:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .