Top Law Schools

Quick question- am I obligated to cite a supreme court decision stating the same proposition of law as numerous lower courts? For example, all lower courts agree on a certain legal principle and the state supreme court reaffirms the proposition. Thanks,

No, but I'm not sure why you wouldn't just cite the Supreme Court case to give your proposition more authority.

edit: I suppose if you can't find a supreme court case that says whatever proposition, that'd be one reason.

I'm from NY, and we have 4 intermediate appellate subdivisions. They generally tend to agree on most things, except for some Fourth Amendment stuff. My preferential "order of citations" is = SCOTUS > NY Court of Appeals (highest court) > appellate court of my jx > appellate court covering the other part of nyc > other app courts

If I can find a case from the appellate court of my jx, I just leave it at that. If I can't find one, I'll cite one or two from the other jurisdictions, depending on how old the cases are. If the cases are from the 90s or earlier and from other jurisdictions, i'd definitely cite two.

The reason is that the Supreme Court, while citing the same proposition of law, contains different and harmful facts. Does that change anything? I don't see why I would need to cite it if the legal proposition is the same. The legal issue is highly fact dependent.

BCLS wrote:The reason is that the Supreme Court, while citing the same proposition of law, contains different and harmful facts. Does that change anything? I don't see why I would need to cite it if the legal proposition is the same. The legal issue is highly fact dependent.

Nope, that doesn't change anything in regards to your recitation of the law. If the law that the supreme court states is what you're looking for, then it doesn't really matter what the facts are.

It's preferable to cite the supreme court case because it has more authority than intermediate appellate courts. You don't have to, but its generally considered better to cite the highest court you can. Even if all the intermediate appellate courts and the state's highest court is in agreement, why make your argument appear weaker than it is by citing an intermediate appellate court?

The facts are irrelevant in citing the law. You can ask your writing professor which she prefers, but I routinely cite state supreme court cases that have contrary outcomes than what I wanted, if the law is nonetheless helpful.

When you make your affirmative argument, you can cite the intermediate appellate courts with facts more favorable to your case.

For example:

Law paragraph:
In New York, a single mistake is generally insufficient to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Turner, 123 NY3d 456 (2008 state high court).

Argument:

Here, defendant points to only one alleged failure of defense counsel, and so his constitutional guarantees were met. See People v. Garrosh, 24 A.D.3d 324 (Intermediate Appellate Court); cf. Turner 123 NY3d at 450 (defense counsel's numerous failures and unfamiliarity with basic evidence law constituted ineffectiveness).

I very much appreciate your reply. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide me with a citation indicating what you just said. Thanks again for your time.

A citation of what? To cite the highest court you can?

Is there any legal publication that states you do not have to cite a supreme court decision for the same proposition of law just because it is a supreme court case?

I am unaware of any such publication. I just know that you may end up not citing the Supreme Court case simply because you are unaware of it, and it's not like the court would reject your papers as a result.

Thanks again, I appreciate your time.

I'm not a litigator but I thought I learned in law school a million years ago if you are aware of a controlling authority decision you need to cite it. It's bad practice to ignore it.
Maybe ask some of the clerks here what they think.

Can we have context for this?

e: LSP, LR note, intern assignment, work assignment, etc?

pancakes3 wrote:Can we have context for this?

e: LSP, LR note, intern assignment, work assignment, etc?

I assumed it was for school. This is a good question.

Personally, I'd cite to the level of appellate court you're writing for, and if you have one of those that cites to S.Ct., the use a "citing." e.g. if writing a brief to the 9th Circuit, cite:

Joe v. Blow, 999 F.2d 123, 124 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Barack v. Obama, 777 U.S. 333 (2010)).

If you don't have one from your circuit that in turn cites SCOTUS, then cite to the circuit, and consider whether to include the U.S. cite as a string cite (considering whether the facts/outcome of the case are so bad that they outweigh the need to put the SCOTUS stamp on this rule). A way to do this where the SCOTUS case comes second is to use the accord signal by quoting from the Circuit case. For example:

SCOTUS says:
The reviewing court considers only the “legal” question “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709, 715 (2016)


Circuit says:
The relevant inquiry in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Monroy v. White, 124 F.3d 212 (9th Cir. 1997)

To use accord, quote from the circuit case, and cite it, then cite "; accord Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709, 715 (2016)." You're forced to use accord here because your quote comes from the circuit and not SCOTUS.

But, as long as the rule is not contrary to what you're saying, you're not obligated to cite any particular case. And it may vary among state intermediate appellate courts, but prior decisions of of a circuit court are binding upon that circuit unless the court overrules the prior decision en banc (or are overruled by SCOTUS, but that does not appear to be the situation here as the SCOTUS rule is the same; if SCOTUS's rule, and other rules, as applied to his facts would result in a negative outcome, then yeah, he may be obligated to cite the SCOTUS case, but distinguish the crap out of it).

Tls2016 wrote:I'm not a litigator but I thought I learned in law school a million years ago if you are aware of a controlling authority decision you need to cite it. It's bad practice to ignore it.
Maybe ask some of the clerks here what they think.

If it's same proposition of law (as opposed to contrary proposition), no duty to cite it. But you may still want to consider how on point the facts are and preemptively counter it (or build in counters to it). It's pretty common practice to not use a case with a holding contrary to the holding you want if you are just looking for recitations of law.

BCLS wrote:The reason is that the Supreme Court, while citing the same proposition of law, contains different and harmful facts. Does that change anything? I don't see why I would need to cite it if the legal proposition is the same. The legal issue is highly fact dependent.

Depends on what your proposition is. When the court sees a weird rule with a string cite of non-binding lower court decisions, it looks really fishy. The law clerks will all wonder why you didn't just cite the SSC decision.