Progressive Legal Research

Transcription

1 Progressive Legal Research

2 Aspen Custom Publishing Series Progressive Legal Research Jonathan Saxon Alex Berrio Matamoros Douglas Cox Julie Lim Raquel J. Gabriel Sarah Shik Lamdan Yasmin Sokkar Harker CUNY School of Law Original materials with Selected pages from Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing: Structure, Strategy, and Style, Edition by Basic Legal Research: Tools and Strategies, Sixth Edition by Amy E. Sloan Experiential Legal Research: Sources, Strategies, and Citation by Diana R. Donahoe The Process of Legal Research: Authorities and Options, Eighth Edition by Christina L. Kunz, Deborah A. Schmedemann, Ann L. Bateson, and Mehmet Konar-Steenberg

3 Copyright 2017 CCH Incorporated. Published by Wolters Kluwer in New York. All other material 2014 CUNY School of Law Legal Research Faculty Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing, Eighth Edition Copyright 2017 Richard K. Neumann, Jr., Ellie Margolis, and Kathryn M. Stanchi. Published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business in New York. Amy E. Sloan Basic Legal Research: Tools and Strategies, Sixth Edition 2015 Amy E. Sloan. Published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business in New York. Diana R. Donahoe Experiential Legal Research: Sources, Strategies, and Citation 2011 Diana R. Donahoe. Published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business in New York. Christina L. Kunz, Deborah A. Schmedemann, Ann L. Bateson, and Mehmet Konar-Steenberg The Process of Legal Research: Authorities and Options, Eighth Edition 2012 CCH Incorporated. Published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business in New York. Wolters Kluwer serves customers worldwide with CCH, Aspen Publishers, and Kluwer Law International products. ( No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or utilized by any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. For information about permissions or to request permissions online, visit us at or a written request may be faxed to our permissions department at To contact Customer Service, customer.service@wolterskluwer.com, call , fax , or mail correspondence to: Wolters Kluwer Attn: Order Department PO Box 990 Frederick, MD Printed in the United States of America

4 PREFACE The ability to perform competent legal research is critical to your development as a lawyer. Almost any task you perform as an attorney, whether it is giving advice to a client, writing a persuasive brief for the court, or negotiating with opposing counsel, will depend on you being able to implement a legal research plan. You should be able to determine what legal issues are relevant to a client s situation, and then locate, analyze, interpret, and update the applicable legal authorities. While there are many legal research textbooks on the market, the Legal Research faculty has created this textbook to specifically accompany this course and the pedagogical goals we have set for it. This textbook presents a variety of tools available to assist you in legal research, teaches you how to use them, and provides a flexible research plan that can be used to approach most legal research problems. Legal research is a skill that needs to be developed over time, and proficiency in legal research comes only with practice. This textbook and the Legal Research course have been designed so students who do the assigned readings before class can spend the majority of class time applying what they have learned through discussion and doing class exercises. As you move through the Legal Research course, keep in mind that you are honing practical research skills you will need to become an excellent attorney advocating for your clients while working for social justice. v

5 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgments Contents v vii xiii 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System 1 2. Legal Research Planning Navigating Online Environments Search Tools and Techniques Secondary Sources of Legal Information Statutory and Legislative History Research Case Research Administrative Law Research Putting It All Together 137 xi

6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL RESEARCH AND THE U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM A. Introduction Before beginning any course on Legal Research, students should understand the structure of the U.S. government, which is based on the concept of federalism. The United States is controlled by two government systems, federal and state. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government power over issues of national importance while leaving power over most domestic issues to state governments. Therefore, the federal government binds the states together under a sovereign authority, but each state also has its own sovereignty over non-federal issues within its borders. As a result, legal issues may arise out of federal or state law, and sometimes both. The U.S. government is divided into three branches as established by the Constitution. The legislative branch of the federal government consists of two houses, the House of Representatives and thesenate,whichpassthestatutes governing federal law. The executive branch is headed by the chief executive of the federal government, the President, and consists of various federal administrative agencies that create and enforce regulations. The judicial branch creates case law and consists of courts at three levels: the trial level (where cases are initially brought), the appellate level (hearing cases that have been granted appeal), and finally the U.S. Supreme Court (hearing only a select few cases on final appeal). State governments are established by state constitutions and are structured very similarly to the federal system, though some of the terminology used to describe the different branches and their functions may differ. The state government branches create state laws in a manner similar to the federal government but these laws may not conflict with federal law, which is established as the supreme law of the United States. 1

7 2 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System B. Introduction to the Legal System 1. Sources of Law There are four main sources of law, which exist at both state and federal levels: constitutions; statutes; court opinions (also called cases); administrative regulations. A constitution establishes a system of government and defines the boundaries of authority granted to the government. The United States Constitution is the preeminent source of law in our legal system, and all other rules, whether promulgated by a state or the federal government, must comply with its requirements. Each state also has its own constitution. A state s constitution may grant greater rights than those secured by the federal constitution, but because a state constitution is subordinate to the federal constitution, it cannot provide lesser rights than the federal constitution does. All of a state s legal rules must comport with both the state and federal constitutions. Since grade school, you have been taught that the U.S. Constitution created three branches of government: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the judicial branch, which interprets the laws; and the executive branch, which enforces the laws. State governments are also divided into these three branches. Although this is elementary civics, this structure truly does define the way government authority is divided in our system of government. The legislative branch of government creates statutes, which must be approved by the executive branch (the president, for federal statutes; the governor, for state statutes) to go into effect. The executive branch also makes rules. Administrative agencies, such as the federal Food and Drug Administration or a state s department of motor vehicles, are part of the executive branch. They execute the laws passed by the legislature and create their own regulations to carry out the mandates established by statute. The judicial branch is the source of court opinions. Courts interpret rules created by the legislative and executive branches of government. If a court determines that a rule does not meet constitutional requirements, it can invalidate the rule. Otherwise, however, the court must apply the rule to the case before it. Court opinions can also be an independent source of legal rules. Legal rules made by courts are called commonlaw rules. Although courts are empowered to make these rules, legislatures can adopt legislation that changes or abolishes a common-law rule, as long as the legislation is constitutional. Figure 1.1 shows the relationships among the branches of government and the types of legal rules they create. An example may be useful to illustrate the relationships among the rules created by the three branches of the federal government. As you know, the U.S.

8 B. Introduction to the Legal System 3 Figure 1.1 Branches of Government and Legal Rules Constitution, through the First Amendment, guarantees the right to free expression. Congress could pass legislation requiring television stations to provide educational programming for children. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the administrative agency within the executive branch that would have responsibility for carrying out Congress s will. If the statute were not specific about what constitutes educational programming or how much educational programming must be provided, the FCC would have to create administrative regulations to execute the law. The regulations would provide the information not detailed in the statute, such as the definition of educational programming. A television station could challenge the statute and regulations by arguing to a court that prescribing the content of material that the station must broadcast violates the First Amendment. The court would then have to interpret the statute and regulations to decide whether they comport with the Constitution. Another example illustrates the relationship between courts and legislatures in the area of common-law rules. The rules of negligence have largely been created by the courts. Therefore, liability for negligence is usually determined by common-law rules. A state supreme court could decide that a plaintiff who sues a defendant for negligence cannot recover any damages if the plaintiff herself was negligent and contributed to her own injuries. This decision would create a common-law rule governing future cases of negligence within that state. The state legislature could step in and pass a statute that changes the rule. For example, the legislature could enact a statute providing that juries are to determine the percentage of negligence attributable to each party and to apportion damages accordingly, instead of completely denying recovery to the plaintiff. Courts in that state

9 4 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System would then be obligated to apply the rule from the statute, not the former common-law rule. Although these examples are simplified, they demonstrate the basic roles of each of the branches of government in enunciating the legal rules governing the conduct of society. They also demonstrate that researching a legal issue may require you to research several differenttypesoflegalauthority. The answer to a research question may not be found exclusively in statutes or court opinions or administrative regulations. Often, these sources must be researched together to determine all of the rules applicable to a research issue. 2. Stare Decisis The United States has a common law legal system following the principle of stare decisis. In the simplest of terms, this means that the decisions of the courts, also called precedents, have the force of law. The full Latin phrase is stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means to adhere to precedent and not to unsettle things which are settled. Stare decisis provides justice, in that similar situations are treated similarly, and predictability, in that people know how to conduct their affairs within the law. In some areas of law, the law derives entirely from judicial decisions. In most areas, the courts render decisions that interact with other legal authorities, such as statutes and agency rules, to create the law governing a client s situation. In either context, to properly assist a client, proficiently researching the decisions of the courts is imperative. Afewnotesaboutvocabulary:Lawyersusetheword case invarious ways: (1) to refer to a client s matter, especially if it involves a dispute; (2) to refer to a dispute in litigation; and (3) to refer to a decision of a court. The words decision and opinion refer to the text a court writes when it decides acase. Caselaw isthetermusedforasetofcasesthattogetherconstitutethe law on a topic. 3. How Courts Are Organized Because the United States has a federal system of government, we have two types of court structures state and federal. Each state has its own courts, enforcing that state s law. And the federal government has courts throughout the country, enforcing federal law. The U.S. Constitution allocates limited responsibilities to the federal government and reserves the rest to the states. As a result, state courts adjudicate a much wider range of claims than federal courts. State courts, in fact, decide the overwhelming majority of cases. Courts are either trial or appellate. A lawsuit starts in a trial court, which hears witness testimony and examines other evidence. After the trial court decides the case, the losing party can appeal to an appellate court, asking it to reverse the trial court s decision. Some states have only one appellate court. In those states, all appeals from trial courts go straight to the state s supreme court. The federal

10 B. Introduction to the Legal System 5 government and most states have two appellate levels. An appeal from a trial court goes to an intermediate appellate court. From there an appeal goes to the highest court. a. State Courts Every state has a trial court of general jurisdiction, which tries all cases except those that fall within the limited jurisdiction of a specialized trial court. Court names differ from state to state. In most states the general jurisdiction trial court is called the Circuit Court, the Superior Court, or the Court of Common Pleas. Among the specialized courts might be a Family Court, a Juvenile Court, a Small Claims Court, and others. In some states, such as Pennsylvania and Maryland, the intermediate appellate court hears appeals from every part of the state. In others, such as California, New York, and Florida, the intermediate appellate court is divided geographically into districts, departments, or the equivalent. Court names aren t consistent from state to state. In California and many other states, the Superior Court is the general jurisdiction trial court. But in Pennsylvania the Superior Court is the intermediate appellate court. In many states, the intermediate appellate court is called the Court of Appeals or a name close to that. But in Maryland and New York, the Court of Appeals is the highest state court. In most states, the highest state court is called the Supreme Court. But In New York, the Supreme Court is a general jurisdiction trial court. b. Federal Courts The federal court system is organized around a general trial court (the U.S. District Court), a few specialized courts (such as the Tax Court), an intermediate appellate court (the Court of Appeals), and the final appellate court (the U.S. Supreme Court). The U.S. District Courts are organized into 94 districts. Where a state has only one district, the court is referred to, for example, as the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Some states have more than one district court. California has four: the District Court for the Northern District of California (at San Francisco), the Eastern District (at Sacramento), the Central District (at Los Angeles), and the Southern District (at San Diego). The U.S. Courts of Appeals are organized into thirteen circuits. Eleven of the circuits include various combinations of states. The Fifth Circuit, for example, hears appeals from the district courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. There s also a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and another for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from certain specialized lower tribunals. The U.S. Supreme Court hears appeals from the U.S. Courts of Appeals. It also hears appeals from the highest state courts where the state court s decision has been based on federal law. But the U.S. Supreme Court s jurisdiction is discretionary. In almost all other appellate courts, the losing party below has a right to appellate review a right to have to the appellate court decide whether the

11 6 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System Figure 1.2 United States Circuits

12 B. Introduction to the Legal System 7 lower court s decision should be reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has discretion to choose which appeals it will hear, and it chooses to hear very few. 4. Types of Authority Authority is either primary or secondary. You ll be able to follow this discussion more easily if you visualize it this way: a. Primary Authority Primary authority includes precedent, statutes, constitutions, administrative regulations, and court rules such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Primary authority is created by legislatures, courts, and other governmental entities that have the power to make law. Primary authority is either mandatory or persuasive. Mandatory authority which must be obeyed is primary authority that has been created by the government whose law controls the outcome of the dispute you are working on. For example, in a tort case being litigated in an Ohio trial court under Ohio law, mandatory authority would include relevant Ohio statutes and appellate court decisions (and, rarely, the state constitution). Mandatory authority and binding authority mean the same thing. Nonmandatory primary authority is primary authority that your court is not required to obey. It might persuade your court even if the court isn t required to follow it. Nonmandatory authority and persuasive authority mean the same thing. Nonmandatory precedent is precedent from courts that cannot govern the dispute you are working on. If you represent a client litigating a question of Ohio law, a decision by an Indiana state court on Indiana law is primary authority. But in Ohio it is nonmandatory primary authority. Indiana courts can t create Ohio law.

13 8 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System How can you separate mandatory precedent from nonmandatory precedent? Look at the situation from the perspective of the judge who will rule on the dispute you are working on. Courts to which a losing party can appeal are courts that can reverse the judge s decision. Precedent from those courts is mandatory authority because, if the judge doesn t obey it, the judge s decision will be reversed. The Ohio Supreme Court can reverse other Ohio courts, either directly or indirectly. But the Indiana Supreme Court has no power to reverse an Ohio trial court. Astate ssupremecourtbindsalllowercourtsinthatstate.astate sintermediate appellate court binds trial courtsunderitsjurisdiction.ifthestatehas a state-wide intermediate appellate court like the Pennsylvania Superior Court (see 1.B.3.a), its precedents are mandatory authority in all the state s trial courts because the Superior Court canreverseanyoftheirdecisions.if the state has a geographically segmented intermediate appellate court (again see 1.B.3.a), each part of that court can reverse trial courts only in its part of the state. In federal courts, the U.S. Courts of Appeals are coordinate courts in relation to each other (see 1.B.3.b). Looking at the country as a whole, one circuit s Court of Appeals has the same rank as every other circuit s Court of Appeals. The Courts of Appeals do not bind each other. In fact, federal law can differ from one circuit to another. For example, the Second and Fifth Circuits have different tests for preliminary injunctions. Arizona is part of the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can reverse decisions made by a U.S. District Court judge located in Arizona. Thus the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions are mandatory authority in Arizona. They are not mandatory in New Mexico, which is in the Tenth Circuit. But if the Tenth Circuit has no precedentonagivenissue,theninth Circuit s decisions might help a New Mexico federal court to fill the gap (see 1.B.6). b. Secondary Authority Secondary authority is not law. It describes the law or explains it. Secondary authority might be persuasive authority, but it is never mandatory. Secondary authority is produced by people or organizations that might by experts about the law but have no power to create it. The secondary sources most likely to be used as authority are restatements, treatises written by scholars, and articles and similar material published in law reviews. Other types exist, but these three are the ones you are most likely to encounter in the first year of law school. A restatement is a series of black-letter common law rules organized into sections with supplemental drafters comments. Restatements are commissioned by the American Law Institute to formulate a consensus view of (restate) the common law. Restatements have an important role in first-year Torts, Contracts, and Property courses, as well as several second- and third-year courses. When a restatement is no longer up-to-date, it is superseded by a second or third version. Thus,

14 B. Introduction to the Legal System 9 the Restatement (Third) of Property replaced the Restatement (Second) of Property. The authoritativeness of a treatise depends on the reputation of its author and on whether the treatise has been kept up-to-date. Some of the outstanding treatises have been written by Wigmore (evidence), Corbin (contracts), Williston (contracts), and Prosser and Keeton (torts). Some treatises are multivolume works; some are in a single volume; some are hardbound with pocket parts or other annual supplements; and some are in looseleaf binders for easier updating. Law reviews print two kinds of material: articles, which are written by scholars, judges, and practitioners, and notesandcomments,whicharewritten by students. If an article is thorough, insightful, or authored by a respected scholar, it may influence a court and might be strong authority. Only in the most unusual of circumstances does a student note or comment influence a court. But even where law review material will not be influential, it might help you analyze an issue, and its footnotes can help you find cases, statutes, and other authority. 5. The Hierarchy of Authority Sources of law, both primary and secondary, are ranked so that one can be chosen over another. The following are some of the basic rules for ranking authority: Mandatory authority always outranks nonmandatory authority. On questions of Ohio law, for example, Ohio statutes and Ohio Supreme Court precedents outrank Indiana precedents as well as restatements, treatises, and law review articles. Within the same jurisdiction, the separation and allocation of powers causes some mandatory authority to outrank other mandatory authority. A constitution prevails over an inconsistent statute. Either a constitution or a statute prevails over inconsistent case law,courtrules,andadministrative regulations. This is basic civics. Constitutions create governments. A legislature, a court, or an administrative agency has only the powers granted by the applicable constitution. Although a state s courts can make common law, the legislature has a superior power to create law in statutes, and statutes outrank the common law. Within the same jurisdiction, a decision from a higher court outranks a decision from a lower court if the higher court has the power to reverse the lower court. See 1.B.4.a. Within the same jurisdiction, newer mandatory authority outranks inconsistent older mandatory authority. An Ohio statute enacted last year outranks an Ohio statute fifteen years ago if the two statutes are inconsistent with each other. The newer statute also outranks precedent interpreting the older statute.

15 10 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System If the Ohio Supreme Court overrules one of its own precedents or if it decides a case in a way that s in somehow inconsistent with one of its own precedents the new precedent outranks older one. Some secondary authority is more persuasive than other secondary authority. When secondary authority matters, many courts are most likely to be influenced by a restatement. You can find out whether a state s courts defer to a particular restatement by checking the manner and frequency with which the restatement is cited in the state s decisions. After restatements, the most influential secondary authority will usually be treatises. After treatises will be law review articles if they are thorough and writtenbyscholarswithrecognized expertise. 6. How Courts Use Dicta A holding is a court s ruling on an issue. A holding creates precedent because later courts must follow it through the doctrine of stare decisis. Reasoning essential to a court s holding is part of the precedent. Dicta are comments in a judicial opinion that are not essential to a court s ruling on an issue. Dicta aren t part of courts holdings and therefore aren t precedent. Often dicta discuss facts that are not before the court. Examples are in the next paragraph. Dicta are only nonmandatory authority and can never be mandatory authority. (Lawyers disagree about whether and when to say dicta or dictum. The footnote explains why. 3 We take no position on this, and whatever your teacher prefers is correct.) Decisions include dicta for a variety of reasons. Sometimes dicta adds clarity. A court might want, for example, to make clear what it is not deciding: If the plaintiff had presented evidence of injury to his reputation, he might be entitled to damages. A court might add dicta to justify an apparently harsh decision: Although these facts might constitute a cause of action for defamation which the plaintiff did not bring they do not substantiate the invasion of privacy cause of action asserted in the complaint, which we dismiss. Or a court might use dicta to suggest something to a lower court for action on remand: Although the parties have not raised on appeal the question of appropriate damages, that issue is likely to arise in the new trial we have ordered, and we point out that... ). 3. This disagreement rests on Latin definitions, although few lawyers have studied Latin as a language. In Latin, dictum can mean either word or something said or statement. See D.P. Simpson, Cassell s New Latin Dictionary 188 (1959). The English word dictionary, a book of word definitions, is derived from dictum s word meaning. The plural is dicta ( words or statements ). In legal writing, dictum is short for obiter dictum, meaning a statement made in passing (singular). More often you will see the plural obiter dicta, meaning words said in passing or statements made in passing. Because in Latin dictum can mean statement, it is grammatically correct to use the word dictum to refer to a statement that is made by a court in a judicial opinion but is not part of a holding. It is also grammatically correct to use the plural dicta to refer to a single judicial statement because it takes more than one word to make a statement.

16 C. The New York State Legal System and Sources of Law in New York State 11 Because dicta doesn t create precedent, lawyers rely on dicta sparingly. But on occasion they do rely on it. If the court that wrote dicta can reverse the court in which your case is being or could be litigated, the dicta, though not mandatory, becomes especially influential. It isn t wrong to use dicta. But it is wrong to use it inappropriately. Dicta can never take the place of a holding, and it s wrong to treat dicta as though it could. If you do use dicta, identify it as such. Otherwise a reader might think that what you ve written is sloppy or an attempted deception. C. The New York State Legal System and Sources of Law in New York State The structure of the New York state legal system generally mirrors that of the federal government. The New York State Constitution establishes the state system of government consisting of the same three branches that exist in the federal system: executive, legislative, and judicial. 1. The Executive Branch The chief executive of the New York executive branch is the governor. Like the president in the federal system, the governor presides over a group of state agencies that are usually created by the legislature. These state agencies are empowered to create New York state regulations. 2. The Legislative Branch As in the federal system, the New York state legislature consists of two houses. The houses in New York are the Assembly and the Senate. Legislation that is passed by both houses and not vetoed by the governor becomes part of the New York state statutes. If the governor does veto a law, the legislature can override it with a two-thirds majority. 3. The Judicial Branch a. Structure The structure of the New York state court system differs from the federal system in some important ways. To begin with, the highest court in the state is called the N.Y. Court of Appeals instead of the Supreme Court (the latter is designated as the highest court in the federal system and most other states). The N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, referred to in practice as just the Appellate Division, usually functions as the intermediate appellate level court in New York. The N.Y. Appellate Division is divided into 4 geographic departments that serve as mandatory authority for the trial courts below them. The trial court level in New York is much more fractured than the federal system. There are several different trial

17 12 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System courts that exist in each county hearing cases involving different subject matter, such as N.Y. Family Court, N.Y. Surrogate s Court, and the confusingly named N.Y. Supreme Court. Like the federal district courts, the decisions of N.Y. state trial level courts have no binding authority on each other. Figure 1.3 shows which appellate department the courts from each county appeal to. Some New York trial courts are grouped by state district number instead of by county, so the district numbers corresponding to the various departments are shown in Figure 1.3 as well. Figure 1.3 New York State Departments

18 C. The New York State Legal System and Sources of Law in New York State 13 Although the New York court system is structured in a three-tier hierarchy (trial court appellate court final appellate court) for most types of cases, there are situations where there might be an additional appellate level required, or where a court other than the N.Y. Court of Appeals serves as the final appellate level. Look at Figure 1.4 to see some of the different paths a case may follow on appeal depending on whether the case is civil or criminal in nature, which trial court initially handles the case, or in some situations which geographic jurisdiction your court is located in. b. Precedent in New York State Courts In addition to the differences in structure between the federal and New York state court systems, determining which intermediate appellate level decisions are mandatory is not as clear-cut in New York. As you read in section B.5.a. of this chapter, the decisions of Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals are only binding on trial courts that fall within the jurisdiction of the same numbered circuit. For example, decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals 1 st Circuit are mandatory authority for District Courts in the 1 st Circuit, but not for District Courts in any other circuit. In the New York state court system, the Appellate Division is split into four numbered departments, but there is disagreement about whether decisions of one department s Appellate Division court are binding on trial courts in other departments. In Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663 (2d Dep t 1984), the second department stated that the Appellate Division is one court divided into departments only for administrative convenience, and held that decisions coming from any Appellate Division department are binding on all state trial courts in New York, as long as there is not a contrary ruling by the Appellate Division court in their own departments. This decision is still considered good law and continues to be cited as authority, however, some trial courts, particularly in the first department, have not followed Mountain View and there has been no explicit ruling on the matter by the New York Court of Appeals or Appellate Division courts in other departments. This issue of New York Appellate Division jurisdiction is often a source of confusion, so here is an easier way to look at which decisions trial courts in New York consider binding authority: 1. Decisions from the Appellate Division court in your department are always considered mandatory; additionally, 2. For trial courts in the second department, decisions from Appellate Division courts in other departments are binding as long as they are not in conflict with decisions from the Appellate Division court in the second department; 3. For trial courts in the first, third, and fourth departments, if you want to argue that an Appellate Division decision from a different department is mandatory you will need to do some additional research to see under what circumstances Mountain View has been followed or distinguished by courts your department.

19 14 Chapter 1. Introduction to Legal Research and the U.S. Legal System Figure 1.4 New York Court Structure 2014 CUNY School of Law Legal Research Faculty

20 C. The New York State Legal System and Sources of Law in New York State Sources of Law in New York State Subsequent chapters in this book go into detail about where and how to find the New York state constitution, statutes, cases, and regulations. For additional information on researching New York state law, consult William H. Manz, Gibson s New York Legal Research Guide (4th ed. 2013).