Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 1:03 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

N.C. Lottery lawsuit dismissed

Topic closed. 23 replies. Last post 11 years ago by csfb.

Page 2 of 2
PrintE-mailLink
masslottery's avatar - dragon eye.jpg

United States
Member #34117
February 28, 2006
756 Posts
Offline
Posted: March 21, 2006, 7:41 pm - IP Logged

win lawsuit 450 370    lose lawsuit 718 795    ROFL

    Avatar

    United States
    Member #26469
    November 18, 2005
    160 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: March 21, 2006, 8:13 pm - IP Logged

    It looks like NC will have to sharpen up some wooden stakes and call Buffy because it seems Robert Orr just doesn't get it.In remarks made after todays ruling Orr stated,"This is not a single-elimination tournement.There are other games to be played."

    Indeed,Orr has been playing his game with the lottery for quite some time now.The ultra-right has been playing their game with NC for 20+ years.Now it is time for them to be stilled.

    Oh well,if it comes to it,the lottery will have to beat them down one last time.It's been done before.

    http://www.heraldsun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?StoryID=714551

      othertrucker's avatar - rage
      Washington North Carolina
      United States
      Member #14173
      April 22, 2005
      22 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: March 21, 2006, 8:37 pm - IP Logged

      Welcome to the lottery world North Carolina!!!!!

      Glad to see you join us even though a few people put up a fuss for who knows whatever reason.

      Brad

      I wish there was a way to keep up with the names of all the people in NC who were against the lottery. That way if they win any money in a lottery it could be taken away from them and their butts $panked. 

        Avatar

        United States
        Member #33085
        February 18, 2006
        743 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: March 21, 2006, 9:23 pm - IP Logged

        I'm willing to bet real $$$ that 70-80% of those against the lottery in NC will purchase a ticket, or two, or when the powerball gets up to $100M a hundred dollars trying to win.

          Avatar
          NY
          United States
          Member #23835
          October 16, 2005
          3474 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: March 22, 2006, 4:31 pm - IP Logged

          Todd  wrote:

          << I believe you are incorrect concerning the legal terminology.  The word "precident" carries legal weight, and to say that one state's ruling creates precident in another state is incorrect.  Even a "non-manditory precident".  The only thing it can do is to guide a judge in one state to understand what motivated a judge in another state.  That is the complete extent of the legal
          weight in another state. >>


          I think we're just looking at it differently, rather than disagreeing about how it works. If you didn't agree that a ruling can be used as precedent in a jurisdiction that isn't under the authority of the court issuing the ruling you wouldn't have thought the ruling at hand might be a landmark ruling. I'm not familiar with the jurisdiction and hierarchy of NC's court system, but the ruling court's jurisdiction is probably limited to a district encompassing just a handful of the counties in NC, which means the ruling isn't even binding in other parts of the state, but we seem to agree that other courts can take judicial notice of the ruling.

          Since a court's ability to enforce any aspect of the law is limited by its jurisdiction, a court's ruling clearly can't "create" precedent in a jurisdiction over which the court has no authority, but the ruling can provide precedent to other courts which may choose to use the ruling even though they have no obligation to do so. If a court chooses to use a previous ruling and concurs with the ruling then it is said to adopt the precedent, which will then be binding on lower courts within that jurisdiction.If a ruling couldn't constitute precedent without being mandatory, then there would be no reason for " mandatory precedent" to exist as a legal concept.

            Todd's avatar - Cylon 2.gif
            Chief Bottle Washer
            New Jersey
            United States
            Member #1
            May 31, 2000
            23273 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: March 22, 2006, 4:44 pm - IP Logged

            No, no, no. 

            It is a superior court, which is seated somewhere in the state, and the ruling is binding to the entire state, not just one jurisdiction. 

            You're the one who brought up something about "manditory precident".  I really don't think that term exists as a de-facto legal term.  Precident is precident.  I'm not sure why you created a new form of precident called "manditory".

            I started out by saying that the ruling would not create precident in other states, but it is a landmark ruling, in my opinion, because it deals directly with an issue that has rarely, if ever, been ruled on in a state court before.

            For all I know they may end up writing up the ruling, which would increase its legal weight.

            Judges from around the country can look upon this judge's argument for guidance when forming their own rulings, so it can only strengthen the argument against lotteries being "taxation" in other states, even though there is no binding precident there.

            I think you creating some kind of argument or issue out of this.  I made my statement at the top of this thread, and then you started arguing about my terminology.

            What is your background in this area?  You seem to be making some very specific statements as if you have some kind of legal training, so it will be very interesting to hear about your legal background in this area.

            In case you were wondering about my background, I have already stated that I performed a good deal of legal research in this area, together with an attorney, so I am not just shooting from the hip.

             

            Check the State Lottery Report Card
            What grade did your lottery earn?

             

            Sign the Petition for True Lottery Drawings
            Help eliminate computerized drawings!

              Avatar
              NY
              United States
              Member #23835
              October 16, 2005
              3474 Posts
              Offline
              Posted: March 24, 2006, 1:46 am - IP Logged

              No, no, no. 

              It is a superior court, which is seated somewhere in the state, and the ruling is binding to the entire state, not just one jurisdiction. 

              You're the one who brought up something about "manditory precident".  I really don't think that term exists as a de-facto legal term.  Precident is precident.  I'm not sure why you created a new form of precident called "manditory".

              I started out by saying that the ruling would not create precident in other states, but it is a landmark ruling, in my opinion, because it deals directly with an issue that has rarely, if ever, been ruled on in a state court before.

              For all I know they may end up writing up the ruling, which would increase its legal weight.

              Judges from around the country can look upon this judge's argument for guidance when forming their own rulings, so it can only strengthen the argument against lotteries being "taxation" in other states, even though there is no binding precident there.

              I think you creating some kind of argument or issue out of this.  I made my statement at the top of this thread, and then you started arguing about my terminology.

              What is your background in this area?  You seem to be making some very specific statements as if you have some kind of legal training, so it will be very interesting to hear about your legal background in this area.

              In case you were wondering about my background, I have already stated that I performed a good deal of legal research in this area, together with an attorney, so I am not just shooting from the hip.


              In my first response I didn't see my comments as a disagreement with your statements, but rather an expansion on them. I expanded on your statement because I saw the general concept as significant to the belief that the decision might be a landmark. That expansion was mostly incidental to my comments as a whole, which were directed at the possible future relevance of the case. As a decision from a Superior Court it will be written up and well documented, with thorough summaries readily available in standard references, but its legal weight will descend mostly from the authority of any court that adopts it as precedent in future cases. My expansion was that rulings could potentially be cited by courts that aren't bound by them, and that's exactly what you've  said about this case above. I still don't forsee many cases that will turn on whether or not a lottery is tax, though I've been wrong before and it could happen.

              I didn't create a new form of precedent and I didn't say mandatory precedent was a specific legal term, de facto or otherwise. I did refer to it as a concept. We clearly agree that some precedent must be followed by other courts, which makes such precedent mandatory. That's the very meaning of the word, regardless of any additional legal meaning that might be defined by statute or custom. Your post suggests that you may be familiar with the phrase "binding precedent". What would be the difference between that and "mandatory precedent"? Again,  unless there is non-binding precedent why the need to refer to binding precedent? If, as you suggest, judges in other jurisdictions look to the ruling for guidance, find that the ruling applies to the case before them, and concur with the ruling then they are using it as precedent, even though it isn't binding upon them. I would expect that your research should have made you familiar with mandatory and persuasive authority. Precedent wouldn't exist without authority and non-binding precedent is a subset of persuasive authority just as mandatory precedent is a subset of mandatory authority. Courts are bound by rulings of their superiors but not their peers, which is why the NC ruling isn't binding throughout the state. Rulings by their peers are persuasive authority, so Superior Courts in other NC districts may well choose to accept the ruling and use it as precedent, but they aren't bound by it.

              As for my background, I might have graduated in the top of my class at a big name law school or maybe I flunked out of high school because I watched too many Law and Order reruns. There's no practical way of verifying the claims of strangers on the internet, so it's wise to make our own evaluations and do some research if we think it would be useful to a matter that's being discussed. Whether it's the internet or real life, you'd be foolish to rely on my  resume if your background or knowledge leads you to believe I'm offering a poor opinion. I'm sure your internet connection gets the same search engines that everyone else gets, and if you're so inclined a Google search will either offer multiple opinions that "mandatory precedent" is a commonly understood term or not in mere seconds.


                csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

                United States
                Member #15309
                May 13, 2005
                307 Posts
                Offline
                Posted: March 24, 2006, 2:37 am - IP Logged

                The appropriate legal terminology is "pursuasive".

                A court decision in one state does not create a precedent in another state, but is merely pursuasive, i.e. when the same legal issues are involved.



                  csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

                  United States
                  Member #15309
                  May 13, 2005
                  307 Posts
                  Offline
                  Posted: March 24, 2006, 2:53 am - IP Logged

                  Justxploring said: "Just don't look up your numbers while driving."

                  Ha, ha. Haven't reached that point yet. Hope I'll never will. Good advice though.

                  Good Luck to you. I really hope you'll get the big one in Florida!