Exam 2: The Us Legal System and Using Legal Resources

The U.S. Supreme Court is not the highest court in the United States.

Persuasive precedent means that a trial-level court in the State of Idaho is bound to follow the case law precedent established by the Supreme Court of Washington because the Washington court is a higher level court.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction where they may hear both state and federal law claims.

Explain the difference between persuasive and binding precedent and discuss the importance of being able to use analogical legal reasoning to solve business problems with legal implications.

Motion of summary judgement occurs when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the judge is able to apply the facts to the law to decide the dispute.

Courts will generally afford great deference to the interpretation of regulations rendered by the agency responsible for promulgating and enforcing those regulations.

The role of the courts is to decide legal controversies by interpreting constitutions, statutes, and common law precedent.

Which of the following is not an example of a secondary legal resource?

Arbitration can best be described as, negotiating a settlement of the dispute.

Once a higher court makes a decision, a lower court in that same jurisdiction must thereafter follow the rule of law established by the higher court because of the following principles.

A "tort" is defined as?

When the higher court in a given jurisdiction declines to hear an appeal, how does that affect the decision rendered at the level below?

Which of the following would NOT be considered a primary legal resource?

Once a higher court makes a decision, a lower court in that same jurisdiction must thereafter follow the rule of law established by the higher court because it has become binding precedent.

To prevail in seeking a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must prove all of the following elements except?

Assume the Supreme Court of Washington State has made the following decisions: a. 1984: No discrimination against yellows b. 1989: No discrimination against blues c. 1992: OK to discriminate against squares d. 1996: No discrimination against greens The lowest-level trial court of Washington, which must now decide whether it is OK to discriminate against reds, may rule that such discrimination against reds is OK.