RJack wrote: > The erroneous non-precedential Jacobsen decision is strictly limited > to the one past defendant in a nation of 310 million people. So... > what's your point?
While it is not a binding precedent it is still a precedent which can and will be cited. Non-binding precedents are routinely cited in US courts. It is not "erroneous" unless a higher court says so. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
