“There is no exception for Supreme Court cases of ancient vintage.”

That’s from Mehr v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1049 fn. 3, regarding the doctrine of stare decisis.  It’s a handy quote to keep in your arsenal for those occasions when you have to cite very old cases.  I can remember legal research and writing instructors pounding into our heads that we should always use newer cases, where available.  Thus, while I’ve never seen anyone try to discount a case based on its age alone, there’s that uneasy feeling any time I find it necessary to cite an old case that the adverse party will try to do just that.

A smart lawyer, of course, would not rely on age alone.  The lawyer would point to some changed circumstance since the time the case was decided, such as changes in statutes or case law that the older decision relied on.  Nonetheless, I feel a little better having Mehr at my disposal.

Here’s the full paragraph from the case:

Although the California Supreme Court is free to overrule its own prior decisions, the doctrine of stare decisis compels lower court tribunals to follow the Supreme Court whatever reason the intermediate tribunals might have for not wishing to do so. [Citations.]  There is no exception for Supreme Court cases of ancient vintage.

Speaking of cases of ancient vintage, they seem to crop up a lot in the area of stays and supersedeas pending appeal.  This strikes me as an odd place for old cases to dominate, in light of the intervening overhaul of the relevant statutes.

If anyone has an explanation, theory, or even a SWAG** as to why old cases dominate in this area — or who, perhaps, wishes to point out that my factual premise is wrong — please leave a comment on this post. (**SWAG = Scientific Wild-Ass Guess – a term I picked up while studying engineering.)

2 Responses to “There is no exception for Supreme Court cases of ancient vintage.”
  1. Jeremy Rosen
    January 16, 2009 | 7:24 pm

    The reason for old cases dominating supersedeas is that when a supersedeas writ is denied it is done so by unpublished order and even when granted, the appellate court also do so with an unpublished order. This occurs because no oral argument need be heard before deciding a writ of supersedeas. Moreover, even in the rare case where there is oral argument on a supersedeas writ, the Court of Appeal will still simply issue an unpublished order granting or denying the writ.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks
  1. A Published Supersedeas Case. Really! | The California Blog of Appeal
Leave a Reply


Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2009/01/07/there-is-no-exception-for-supreme-court-cases-of-ancient-vintage/trackback/
Blog Proprietor

This blog is brought to you exclusively by attorney Greg May, an "of counsel" attorney with Jones & Lester, LLP in Oxnard, California, who can handle your appeal anywhere in California.

The views expressed on this blog are those of Greg May only, not the views of the Jones & Lester partnership or any other attorney in the firm. The content offered on this blog is provided solely for purposes of news and commentary. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such.

View Greg May's profile on LinkedIn

Follow gregmay on Twitter