No. of Recommendations: 4
they're not generally supposed to, and not often asked to, blaze a whole lot of new legal trails.
It makes sense that a first tier court would not be the preferred venue to alter or outright reverse prior precedent. Stare decisis and all. I didn't know there were unwritten rules that first tier courts were expected to shy away from being first to establish precedent for new, unseen combinations of facts, however obvious. Seems like a practice that puts the appearance of judicial stability ahead of actual justice. Especially when it delays justice for the ultimate winner, presuming they have the financial means to continue through multiple appeals.
WTH
