A Superior Court judge ruled today that the lottery legislation is not a tax, and threw out a lawsuit challenging how lawmakers created the state lottery.
Superior Court Judge Henry "Chip" Hight of Franklin County dismissed the lawsuit filed by the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law representing several taxpayers and interest groups.
"No person is forced to purchase a lottery ticket," Hight wrote in an 11-page ruling. "The lottery act does not impose a tax on the purchaser of a lottery ticket."
The state's first lottery tickets are scheduled to go on sale March 30.
At a hearing Monday at the Wake County courthouse, Robert Orr, executive director of the law institute, argued that the lottery money earmarked for education — about 35 cents for every dollar spent on tickets — was equivalent to a tax. Therefore, Orr argued, lawmakers failed to follow procedure required in the state constitution for revenue bills.
Norma Harrell, the state's lawyer, said the lottery legislation wasn't a revenue bill and lawmakers didn't violate the state constitution.
The plaintiffs complained that the House and Senate each failed to hold two roll-call votes on separate days for the bill, as required for approving tax measures.
"A tax is a forced contribution to government which has no necessary immediate relationship to a benefit conferred," Hight wrote in his ruling. No one is forced to play the lottery, he wrote.
Hight also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the state's legal expenses.
Robert Orr, a lawyer with the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, represented many of the plaintiffs.
"We are in the process of talking with our clients and our board of directors about the next step or steps to be taken," Orr said in a prepared statement.
The lawsuit was filed in December, 3 1/2 months after the lottery became law.
More than 4,000 lottery ticket terminals have been installed statewide, 150 lottery workers have been hired and an advertising campaign is scheduled to promote the first sales of scratch-off tickets March 30.
Although state rulings are not precident-setting in other states (or in federal law), I still think this is a landmark ruling for the lottery industry.
I'm not sure if there has ever been a ruling like this one.
A judge ruled that the lottery is not a tax. That completely destroys one of the arguments put forth continually by people who think the lottery is some kind of evil social engineering plot against poor people. ("Poor people get taxed more than wealthy people because they play the lottery much more, so they are being taxed much more.")
I have always maintained that was a completely wrong-headed opinion, and now this ruling confirms that. Excellent.
And all the people said, "Amen!" I've often wondered why some people worry about what the poor are doing, especially if the poor do not affect their particular lifestyle.
Finally, all North Carolinians, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy should be celebrating that North Carolina has a lottery because the lottery benefits everyone: people who win the lottery invest their dollars back into the community -- their purchasing power increases substantially -- creating jobs for everyone, too.
<< Hight also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the state's legal expenses. >>
Cool. If it gets more expensive for all the meddlesome moralizers who think they know what's bad for us to continue their meddling, maybe they'll cut back a bit.
<< Although state rulings are not precident-setting in other states (or in federal law), I still think this is a landmark ruling for the lottery industry.
I'm not sure if there has ever been a ruling like this one.
A judge ruled that the lottery is not a tax. >>
Even a case decided by a town justice in West Upper Podunk can constitute precedent, which in its simplest sense is any previous ruling, so any court that's aware of this ruling could potentially cite it as precedent. Of course you're right that it isn't mandatory precedent in any court not under the authority of the court issuing the ruling, so other courts are also free to ignore it. Regardless, I'm skeptical that it will ever be considered a landmark case, and there's still the possibility that the ruling could be overturned on appeal, possibly in a court that does have authority over a much wider area. This case could just as easily have been about any bill that raises revenue, such as driver's license or hunting license fees. Since it was about procedural issues concerning enactment of state laws, similar NC cases could easily turn on minor points, and the issues may be completely irrelevant in other states where even a similar law will be worded differently.
It's interesting to note that the state's lawyer said that the legislation wasn't a revenue bill. I don't see how any rational person can believe that. Lotteries are clearly started because of their ability to generate revenue rather than to provide a service that the public may want. What differentiates "revenue" from "tax" probably isn't at all clear, and may not be consistent in cases involving slightly different circumstances. There's probably wide agreement that nobody has to hunt, so therefore hunting licenses aren't mandatory and don't constitue a tax, even though they clearly generate revenue. Sales tax only applies to items that you buy, and buying them is voluntary, so is it really a tax based on the judge's reasoning? If you voluntarily buy a toaster the state compels you to give them x% of the price, and if you voluntarily buy a lottery ticket the state compels you to give them the portion of the price that goes directly to the state. As a practical matter, what's the difference between a lottery ticket that costs $1.00, of which the state immediately skims 50 cents, and a lottery ticket that costs 50 cents, but is also subject to a 100% sales tax?
I certainly agree that the ruling makes sense, but I don't see it as a big deal. As you note, it has no mandatory precedent in other states, and the argument that lotteries are a kind of tax is mostly just a PR tool and occasionally a convenient roadblock for those opposed to lotteries. IIRC, when California joined Megamillions the lawsuits were about what was permitted by the original law authorizing a state lottery, which had nothing to do with taxes. There will always be people who disapprove of lotteries and some of them will be in various legislative bodies. The latter will use whatever argumewnts and roadblocks they think will work, with plenty of vocal support from the moralizers who gave them their jobs.
The concept of lotteries not being a tax is pretty widespread (they are widely defined as a source of non-tax revenue) and I do believe there have been several rulings - though I must confess I cannot name individual states off the top of my head.
Glad to see there is a judge somewhere that is capable of issuing such a clear ruling.
And all the people said, "Amen!" I've often wondered why some people worry about what the poor are doing, especially if the poor do not affect their particular lifestyle.
Finally, all North Carolinians, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy should be celebrating that North Carolina has a lottery because the lottery benefits everyone: people who win the lottery invest their dollars back into the community -- their purchasing power increases substantially -- creating jobs for everyone, too.
If you're a member of society everyone else in that society affects your lifestyle one way or another. Right now 49% of US voters are being governed by somebody elected by the other 51%, which is about how things worked 10, 20 and 50 years ago, too.
For the most part, the only people who get a tangible benefit from lotteries are the small percentage who win more than they lose, the politicians who raise revenue without raising taxes, and the people who don't play the lottery. Anyone who's an average player has lost about 50% of what they've bet and it hasn't reduced their taxes by the amount they've lost. The only benefit the average players get is a license to dream about being rich. Any money reinvested in the local area by winners is offset by the money that the losers didn't get the chance to spend on something other than the losing tickets. The money that the winners spend during their month-long vacation to Bora Bora definitely doesn't do anything to benefit the community in which they bought the ticket.
Many of the arguments against lotteries are valid. There are plenty of people spending money on tickets that they really can't afford to spend, but you can't legislate reasonable decision making. As long as it doesn't directly injure others we should all be free to do things that have risk or even be downright stupid.
I can't help but chuckle while reading this thread. A few years ago I went out on a "d-a-t-e" (yikes) and to this day I remember when I mentioned the lottery and the man I met for dinner said to me condescendingly, "Oh, Dear. Don't you know that's just the way they tax the poor?" Needless to say, I never had dinner with him again. But I also swore that when I became wealthy, I'd never change who I am. I'll only change some of my material possessions, but I'll be the same poor slob in my heart and won't speak to anyone in a patronizing manner just because I can afford nicer things.
Something is only a tax if you are required to pay it. The lottery may very well become an addictive habit for some people, but until they close all the bars and liquor stores or stop selling cigarettes, it's a lot less harmful than a couple of martinis and a ticket won't lead to cancer or a head-on collision. Just don't look up your numbers while driving!
The concept of lotteries not being a tax is pretty widespread (they are widely defined as a source of non-tax revenue) and I do believe there have been several rulings - though I must confess I cannot name individual states off the top of my head.
Glad to see there is a judge somewhere that is capable of issuing such a clear ruling.
Well, I make it a point to stay on top of these things, and I have never heard of such a ruling. The fact is that there just isn't much of an opportunity to have a case like this heard.
To say it is "widespread" is false for a number of reasons, first and foremost, just the fact that it is so rare to have a case like this in front of a judge.
As to KY Floyd's remarks, 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 have done some research with a very good attorney in this area, so I am well familiar with this concept.
The only thing that would set precidence between states could be constitutional issues, and this does not appear to involve any constitutional issues.
I can't help but chuckle while reading this thread. A few years ago I went out on a "d-a-t-e" (yikes) and to this day I remember when I mentioned the lottery and the man I met for dinner said to me condescendingly, "Oh, Dear. Don't you know that's just the way they tax the poor?" Needless to say, I never had dinner with him again. But I also swore that when I became wealthy, I'd never change who I am. I'll only change some of my material possessions, but I'll be the same poor slob in my heart and won't speak to anyone in a patronizing manner just because I can afford nicer things.
Something is only a tax if you are required to pay it. The lottery may very well become an addictive habit for some people, but until they close all the bars and liquor stores or stop selling cigarettes, it's a lot less harmful than a couple of martinis and a ticket won't lead to cancer or a head-on collision. Just don't look up your numbers while driving!
Excellent! I LOVE how you stood up for your principles! The guy starts spouting some garbage about the lottery and you give him the boot -- how great is that?!
Excellent! I LOVE how you stood up for your principles! The guy starts spouting some garbage about the lottery and you give him the boot -- how great is that?!
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.
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.
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.
<< 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.
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.
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.
Although state rulings are not precident-setting in other states (or in federal law), I still think this is a landmark ruling for the lottery industry.
I'm not sure if there has ever been a ruling like this one.
A judge ruled that the lottery is not a tax. That completely destroys one of the arguments put forth continually by people who think the lottery is some kind of evil social engineering plot against poor people. ("Poor people get taxed more than wealthy people because they play the lottery much more, so they are being taxed much more.")
I have always maintained that was a completely wrong-headed opinion, and now this ruling confirms that. Excellent.
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 have a suggestion for Robert Orr - DROP IT!
Oh,and one more thing...pay the cashier on your way out."Hight also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the state's legal expenses."
Darn it! It's about d#mn time someone in North Carolina got some B#*ls. Way to go Hight!
And all the people said, "Amen!" I've often wondered why some people worry about what the poor are doing, especially if the poor do not affect their particular lifestyle.
Finally, all North Carolinians, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy should be celebrating that North Carolina has a lottery because the lottery benefits everyone: people who win the lottery invest their dollars back into the community -- their purchasing power increases substantially -- creating jobs for everyone, too.
<< Hight also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the state's legal expenses. >>
Cool. If it gets more expensive for all the meddlesome moralizers who think they know what's bad for us to continue their meddling, maybe they'll cut back a bit.
Todd wrote:
<< Although state rulings are not precident-setting in other states (or in federal law), I still think this is a landmark ruling for the lottery industry.
I'm not sure if there has ever been a ruling like this one.
A judge ruled that the lottery is not a tax. >>
Even a case decided by a town justice in West Upper Podunk can constitute precedent, which in its simplest sense is any previous ruling, so any court that's aware of this ruling could potentially cite it as precedent. Of course you're right that it isn't mandatory precedent in any court not under the authority of the court issuing the ruling, so other courts are also free to ignore it. Regardless, I'm skeptical that it will ever be considered a landmark case, and there's still the possibility that the ruling could be overturned on appeal, possibly in a court that does have authority over a much wider area. This case could just as easily have been about any bill that raises revenue, such as driver's license or hunting license fees. Since it was about procedural issues concerning enactment of state laws, similar NC cases could easily turn on minor points, and the issues may be completely irrelevant in other states where even a similar law will be worded differently.
It's interesting to note that the state's lawyer said that the legislation wasn't a revenue bill. I don't see how any rational person can believe that. Lotteries are clearly started because of their ability to generate revenue rather than to provide a service that the public may want. What differentiates "revenue" from "tax" probably isn't at all clear, and may not be consistent in cases involving slightly different circumstances. There's probably wide agreement that nobody has to hunt, so therefore hunting licenses aren't mandatory and don't constitue a tax, even though they clearly generate revenue. Sales tax only applies to items that you buy, and buying them is voluntary, so is it really a tax based on the judge's reasoning? If you voluntarily buy a toaster the state compels you to give them x% of the price, and if you voluntarily buy a lottery ticket the state compels you to give them the portion of the price that goes directly to the state. As a practical matter, what's the difference between a lottery ticket that costs $1.00, of which the state immediately skims 50 cents, and a lottery ticket that costs 50 cents, but is also subject to a 100% sales tax?
I certainly agree that the ruling makes sense, but I don't see it as a big deal. As you note, it has no mandatory precedent in other states, and the argument that lotteries are a kind of tax is mostly just a PR tool and occasionally a convenient roadblock for those opposed to lotteries. IIRC, when California joined Megamillions the lawsuits were about what was permitted by the original law authorizing a state lottery, which had nothing to do with taxes. There will always be people who disapprove of lotteries and some of them will be in various legislative bodies. The latter will use whatever argumewnts and roadblocks they think will work, with plenty of vocal support from the moralizers who gave them their jobs.
Hey Todd:
The concept of lotteries not being a tax is pretty widespread (they are widely defined as a source of non-tax revenue) and I do believe there have been several rulings - though I must confess I cannot name individual states off the top of my head.
Glad to see there is a judge somewhere that is capable of issuing such a clear ruling.
And all the people said, "Amen!" I've often wondered why some people worry about what the poor are doing, especially if the poor do not affect their particular lifestyle.
Finally, all North Carolinians, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy should be celebrating that North Carolina has a lottery because the lottery benefits everyone: people who win the lottery invest their dollars back into the community -- their purchasing power increases substantially -- creating jobs for everyone, too.
If you're a member of society everyone else in that society affects your lifestyle one way or another. Right now 49% of US voters are being governed by somebody elected by the other 51%, which is about how things worked 10, 20 and 50 years ago, too.
For the most part, the only people who get a tangible benefit from lotteries are the small percentage who win more than they lose, the politicians who raise revenue without raising taxes, and the people who don't play the lottery. Anyone who's an average player has lost about 50% of what they've bet and it hasn't reduced their taxes by the amount they've lost. The only benefit the average players get is a license to dream about being rich. Any money reinvested in the local area by winners is offset by the money that the losers didn't get the chance to spend on something other than the losing tickets. The money that the winners spend during their month-long vacation to Bora Bora definitely doesn't do anything to benefit the community in which they bought the ticket.
Many of the arguments against lotteries are valid. There are plenty of people spending money on tickets that they really can't afford to spend, but you can't legislate reasonable decision making. As long as it doesn't directly injure others we should all be free to do things that have risk or even be downright stupid.
I can't help but chuckle while reading this thread. A few years ago I went out on a "d-a-t-e" (yikes) and to this day I remember when I mentioned the lottery and the man I met for dinner said to me condescendingly, "Oh, Dear. Don't you know that's just the way they tax the poor?" Needless to say, I never had dinner with him again. But I also swore that when I became wealthy, I'd never change who I am. I'll only change some of my material possessions, but I'll be the same poor slob in my heart and won't speak to anyone in a patronizing manner just because I can afford nicer things.
Something is only a tax if you are required to pay it. The lottery may very well become an addictive habit for some people, but until they close all the bars and liquor stores or stop selling cigarettes, it's a lot less harmful than a couple of martinis and a ticket won't lead to cancer or a head-on collision. Just don't look up your numbers while driving!
I live in North Carolina. This is a great day for this state. All I can say is "Let the Games Begin".
Hey Todd:
The concept of lotteries not being a tax is pretty widespread (they are widely defined as a source of non-tax revenue) and I do believe there have been several rulings - though I must confess I cannot name individual states off the top of my head.
Glad to see there is a judge somewhere that is capable of issuing such a clear ruling.
Well, I make it a point to stay on top of these things, and I have never heard of such a ruling. The fact is that there just isn't much of an opportunity to have a case like this heard.
To say it is "widespread" is false for a number of reasons, first and foremost, just the fact that it is so rare to have a case like this in front of a judge.
As to KY Floyd's remarks, 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 have done some research with a very good attorney in this area, so I am well familiar with this concept.
The only thing that would set precidence between states could be constitutional issues, and this does not appear to involve any constitutional issues.
I can't help but chuckle while reading this thread. A few years ago I went out on a "d-a-t-e" (yikes) and to this day I remember when I mentioned the lottery and the man I met for dinner said to me condescendingly, "Oh, Dear. Don't you know that's just the way they tax the poor?" Needless to say, I never had dinner with him again. But I also swore that when I became wealthy, I'd never change who I am. I'll only change some of my material possessions, but I'll be the same poor slob in my heart and won't speak to anyone in a patronizing manner just because I can afford nicer things.
Something is only a tax if you are required to pay it. The lottery may very well become an addictive habit for some people, but until they close all the bars and liquor stores or stop selling cigarettes, it's a lot less harmful than a couple of martinis and a ticket won't lead to cancer or a head-on collision. Just don't look up your numbers while driving!
Excellent! I LOVE how you stood up for your principles! The guy starts spouting some garbage about the lottery and you give him the boot -- how great is that?!
Excellent! I LOVE how you stood up for your principles! The guy starts spouting some garbage about the lottery and you give him the boot -- how great is that?!
win lawsuit 450 370 lose lawsuit 718 795
win lawsuit 450 370 lose lawsuit 718 795
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!