Craig Cooper v. Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, et al.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (4) Under the dectaine.of share decisic all tribunal exercising inferior jurisdiction ARE Reduized to Follow deexsion of oe Courts EXERCISING, SuERIOR JuaisdicrioN. Respondent super| | ioe Busted to Follow the final decision aud laws crted of : A Appellate couel in Cooper we Velez. The Velez Coudt led US. Supreme Court case Week ve Humphrey siz us. 477 to disnast Of this Case. Did Respondents Comply = with Aheie {uaisdietion undee the law of stare deersis ? (2.) The U.S. Supreme Cough iW Heck v. Yumpheey, 512 us. 477 480 Meld “A Sut Coivil) 1s classified a habeas Corpus" under Certain conditions, “if A party is challengivg his sewtence oa | CaWichioN? The Cooper v. Velez cout decided DeNTONER Cooper was challenging his SENTENCE on couviction and stated “Wo cause Faction had aterued” Do Respondents coucts Atte afiwal judgment wow fave jurisdiction { Authority To | adopt vhs pwwl belie? And decisiow ih Regard to the Cooper OY. Velez cage under the docteive of stare decisis ? Gee Fag to the Application of Heck vw. Humphrey, SIZ us. O17, 480) | acc @) Whether Cooper v. Velez Can be declieed A civil guit : When if (3 dismissed puesuatt to Heck v. Humphrey 512 US. 477480 For Challeniginig pEttonER Cooper Cotivic | Tiow / sentence 2 , ; a oS