Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 15

Tom Lakeman - author and photographer

I have a rather lovely book called "Of Sea and Land" by Tom Lakeman. It is a collection of photographs and descriptive writing about India. Undated, but "first profits ... will go to the Royal Tank Regiment Prisoners of War", to be distributed after the war. It says it is the sequel to "Of Hills". Distributed by Chapman & Hall Ltd, London.

I'd be interested to find out more about Tom Lakeman - anyone able to help? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that the author Tom Ashley Lakeman is the Tom Ashley Lakeman, a lieutenant in the Royal Tank Corps in the 1930s, who married the tennis star Joan Fry. That would jibe with the allocation of the profits during the war of his book Of Hills to the "Royal Tank Regiment Prisoners of War Fund" (the RTR being a later name of the RTC). Here's a picture of the couple and their baby daughter in 1933. The officer (born in 1899) was an MBE and a major in 1938.[1]

Thanks - looks good, he is Tom Ashley Lakeman. Apart from it being such a lovely book, it also interests me because the only Lakemans I have ever heard of before this are a fisher family from Mevagissey near where I grew up. DuncanHill (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And one of the sources you linked to has him serving in the North West Frontier and Wazirstan. DuncanHill (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So it does, by Jove. Missed that. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick search at Ancestry.com gives Thomas Ashley Lakeman, b. 6 Feb. 1899, Modbury, Devon, lived with grandparents at Modbury in 1911; married Joan Cradock Fry 12 Nov. 1930 at Brompton, Kent, d. March 1982, Hastings, Sussex. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ghmyrtle. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Of Hills" has been uploaded to archive.org, though goodness knows how accurate that copyright data is. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems he also designed Bren gun mounts. British .303in Bren Gun Mk.1 on Lakeman AA mount. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Binding precedence of a legal case

I was reading a question above, on this page. This is the link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Missouri state circuit courts. And it made me think of my own question. When you have a legal case (i.e., litigation), there are (essentially) two parties (the plaintiff and the defendant). I thought that the outcome of that case was ("technically" speaking) binding only on those two parties, and no one else. Am I mistaken? Three points of clarification follow. (1) I am referring to the United States. (2) I am referring to the lowest level of court, not an appellate level. (3) I use the term "technically" speaking, as opposed to what actually happens in practical terms (in "real life", "practically" speaking). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You might want to look at things like liens and seizure (law) and child custody where third parties have to act in accordance with the legal decision. This is why the deed to a property is filed with the county clerk. If title changes hands, people can't pretend otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't understand. I am talking about the results of litigation. What is the relationship to deeds, titles, and filings with the county clerk? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In common law terms, decisions made in any court within a country are not binding, but considered, in decisions in any other court in that country. But in basic terms in the USA, decisions are binding from the top down in a couple of ways: SCOTUS is supreme everywhere and binds on all lower courts, including Circuits, which are binding on the states in those circuits, and thence to county and city courts below. Federal courts rule on those issues covered federally, and are thus binding on state/county/city courts when issues under federal purview (which would be shunted to Federal Court anyway) come into play.

So. A SCOTUS ruling affects everyone. An nth Circuit ruling binds everyone within that Circuit. A State ruling binds everyone within that state. A county ruling binds everyone within that county. A city (where it exists) ruling binds everyone within that city.

Essentially it's a matter of jurisdiction. SCOTUS has supreme jurisdiction over everything as delineated by the Constitution. Beyond that, the highest court of a given jurisdiction binds all decisions below. And in the USA (as within all common law countries) any decision made on a given point of law in any place can be used as argument in other courts.

This is all extremely general of course, and specific exceptions exist in all sorts of ways, which is why we have law schools. The simplest, if you're not a lawyer, is: SCOTUS is boss of everything, State supreme courts are bosses of State law, Federal courts are bosses of Federal law, and everyone takes advice from each other.

After edit conflict... well, basically, a given ruling "You owe Complainant thirty-seven sheep" is relevant to only that complainant and defendant. But the legal questions raised are dependent on legal questions raised within that jurisdiction, its larger (state) jurisdiction, federally, and SCOTUS decisions. And any decision raised in the specific case can be cited in any other jurisdiction within the USA, and can be cited outside of it as advisory "this is what other common law courts have decided" opinions. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reply above is specifically discussing appellate courts (which, yes, are binding on all who fall within the jurisdiction of that court). However, I am referring specifically to the lowest level of court in any jurisdiction, as my original post delineated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) When a legal judgment or settlement results in the change of title to some real property, for example, the result is filed with the county clerk to make public the change of ownership. If the previous owner had a contract with say, a lawn service to maintain the property, and they did work not realizing the title had changed, the new owner would be under no obligation to pay them. If a child is enrolled in a boarding school by one parent who loses sole custody to the other parent, the school would have to recognize this and allow the child to go with the new custodial parent. It couldn't take the first parent's side and keep the child. (I have no idea how such record are kept, probably by the court clerk, but you can look that up.) Legal decisions can change facts and while third parties may not be named that doesn't mean they can ignore the new facts. The term binding doesn't seem to apply as such to third parties. We have articles on binding agreement, binding arbitration, and binding precedent. Here is a list of article on binding on third parties. (And (ec) we have his very own words above helpfully giving a technical definition of binding). μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's part of the abstract of an interesting legal case:

Not Party, Not Bound? Not Necessarily: Binding Third Parties to Maritime Arbitration (by Michael H. Bagot, Jr., & Dana A. Henderson)

This Article came into being through the authors' handling of a matter in which their client, the purchaser of new vessels, was ordered to arbitrate a dispute regarding defective vessel construction. In that case, the arbitration clause was contained in a contract between the shipyard and a classification society. The vessel purchaser was not named in the shipyard-classification society contract, did not have notice of its terms, never signed nor negotiated the terms therein, had no prior dealings with the classification society, was an unsophisticated purchaser, and did not have the opportunity to review the documents containing the arbitration clause until well after delivery. Nevertheless, the owner was bound to arbitration as a third-party beneficiary of the classification agreement. This result was shocking and unconscionable both to the authors and to their client and prompted this query into circumstances in which nonsignatories are bound to arbitration. We write because maritime lawyers and their clients should be forewarned. source

μηδείς (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In general, I agree with what you say. However, your post (at least, the first half) is not really discussing the issue of decisions precedentially binding other third-parties. Rather, you are simply discussing the legal status of those involved (original) two parties, and how their legal status affects others with whom they interact (i.e., third parties who are not party to the original suit). Those are two completely different things. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You asked about whether a decision was binding on third parties, not on other courts.I addressed the third party issue, but the discussion below seems to have changed to a different topic, whether the decisions of co-ordinate courts set binding precedents. That's an entirely different issue. Tevildo's comment immediately below agrees with my lay understanding. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I asked about whether a decision was binding on third parties. When I used the phrase "third parties", I was referring to some future litigants whose case involves the same legal issues. I was not referring to third parties ("other people") who will subsequently be interacting with the current litigants, once the current litigants' case has been decided. And, as you state, that's an entirely different issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I am quite willing to accept that clarification, in which case my points may be correct, but not what you wanted. μηδείς (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See precedent and ratio decidendi. The judgement of the lower court (for example, that a piece of land belongs to A rather than B) is binding on third parties (so that if C wants to buy the land, they have to negotiate with A), unless it's overturned on appeal. The ratio of the lower court (in common-law systems) is not binding on any court, but may be used as a persuasive example in other courts; however, a court of coordinate or superior jurisdiction is free to disagree with the ratio of the lower court and substitute its own reasoning. Tevildo (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, much of this conversation (above and below) is mixing apples and oranges. Let's say that A and B have a property dispute that they litigate; the court determines that A owns the land and B does not own it. Yes, naturally, any third party who wants to engage in some transaction for that land must deal with the "correct" owner (they must deal with A and not with B). That has nothing to do with setting a precedent that other future litigants are bound by. That scenario is simply that the legal status of A and B are determined (adjudicated), and anyone who wants to interact with A or B must do so in accordance with the legal status of A or B (property owner or not) as adjudicated by the court. The issue that my original post asked about was setting precedents for other future litigants. So, for example, the A versus B dispute is adjudicated today. A year from now, we have two completely separate and independent parties (call them C and D). C and D have absolutely nothing to do with A and B. So, C and D have the same type of "issue" that has arisen in their own property dispute. Is the decision of the A versus B trial court now binding on the same issue as presented in the C versus D case? That is the situation that I am referring to. I am not referring to how other independent third parties must interact with the original litigants (A and B), once the legal issue of A and B has been adjudicated. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The decision of an outstanding point of law is generally binding on lower courts if decided in appellate courts, yes. The decision in re A v B can be cited as precedent in C v D but is not necessarily binding. It seems like you are actually asking a specific question about a real-world case, to which I suggest you consult competent legal counsel in your jurisdiction. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read the very first sentence in my original post. So, no, I am hardly asking about a real-world case. That other question got my mind to thinking ... and, specifically, to thinking about this other related question that I ended up posting. Also, my original post asked the question specifically excluding appellate courts. I was asking only in relation to lowest level courts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So wait, getting the fact pattern clear: the hypothetical trial court case A v. B dealt with the disposition of Blackacre, while the hypothetical trial court case C v. D deals with the disposition of Whiteacre? A v. B is not binding precedent in any US jurisdiction I'm aware of. The funny thing... I tried looking through my usual reference works for law. I really couldn't find anything that directly tackles this issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that is the fact pattern. A vs. B is one dispute (over Blackacre); C vs. D is a totally separate dispute over Whiteacre (but let's say that the same exact legal issues arise in C and D's case as did in A and B's earlier case). A lowest level (trial) court does not in any way set precedent for future litigants. It only handles the matter immediately at hand. The decisions of the lower level (trial) court are binding and applicable only to the two parties presently standing in front of the court. It does not, as precedent, bind any future litigants down the road. That being the case, it seems that my idea contradicts with the answers presented in the above discussion earlier on this page (at this link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Missouri state circuit courts). I don't see how a lowest level Missouri circuit court in District 1 sets any binding precedent for, say, District 2. In fact, it does not even set any precedent for its own District 1! A trial court is completely different than an appellate court. A trial court simply resolves the issue at hand, between the two present parties; it has no bearing and sets no binding precedent on any future litigants. An appellate court is entirely different. In fact, its entire purpose is to set binding precedent for the lower courts (and judges, lawyers, and litigants) within its jurisdiction. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The important word is "binding". The decision creates a precedent, but not a binding precedent. It may be cited by the lawyers in a court of coordinate jurisdiction, and that court may (and often will) follow it, but that court is not obliged to follow it. Tevildo (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I got it now. What was said above in response to the Missouri question seems to be absolutely incorrect. The only way I understand what was said to be right is in the sense of the judgment having effect throughout the state (which really is an understatement, since the Full Faith and Credit Clause means it's binding, with few exceptions, throughout the country). But of course, the question itself sounds like it's asking about appellate circuits and precedent within those circuits... and I know that's something I've always been curious about—whether the same sort of circuit splits that happen at the federal level also happen at the state appellate level. The problem, of course, is that in Missouri, circuit courts are trial courts. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, I agree with what you said. It seems that we are on the same page. I also noticed that you posted on the above question (about the Missouri courts), which I will go read in a moment. In this post, you stated that you were curious about circuit splits. And whether a circuit split at the state level mirrors that of a circuit split at the federal level. I think the two systems (federal versus state) are set up differently. Or at least, I believe so. In the federal system, a federal circuit court of appeals handles a specific geographic region. So, for example, there might be case law in the Second Circuit that contradicts 100% some case law in the Ninth Circuit. So, the states within the Second Circuit (New York, etc.) follow one law; while the states in the Ninth Circuit (California, etc.) follow another. If the circuit split is "important enough", those contradictions and discrepancies will be settled by the US Supreme Court. And, once the Supreme Court rules, the law becomes the same for everyone in the USA. As a result of my hypothetical example, all people in the Second Circuit will be under the same exact law as all people in the Ninth Circuit (that is, after the US Supreme Court settles the circuit split). As far as state circuits, I don't think that it is set up geographically. (I could be wrong.) In my state (Connecticut), we have one intermediate appellate court, and its jurisdiction is the entire state. So, there are no separate geographic jurisdictions. The State Appellate Court has jurisdiction over the entire state. And, of course, some rulings of the Appellate Court will move on to the State Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over the whole state. So, at the intermediate appellate level, there is no opportunity for a geographic "circuit split", since there are no geographic sub-jurisdictions. That is how my state (Connecticut) handles this. Perhaps only because it is a geographically small state? I don't know what other (larger) states do. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There's case precedent (as far as I know no trial court decisions formally set precedent, though informally some are followed) and then there's res judicata and issue preclusion. My understanding of the question is when, or how, a non-precedential trial court judgment might affect the rights of a third party: this would be through either res judicata or issue preclusion. This was of particular importance in the middle ages when the fine of lands was a means of settling family property: a court would evaluate the legality of a particular conveyance and, if it was legal, issue a judgment conveying the land, which would preclude any claims against the original holder of the property. Those judgments certainly weren't precedential, but they affected third parties. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, you might consider the issue of subrogation in insurance. Suppose A crashes his car into B. A doesn't have insurance, but B has uninsured motorist coverage. B's insurer pays B money for his claim. Technically speaking, both B and B's insurer have a cause of action against A, but if B sues A and loses, then B's insurer is estopped from suing A for the same accident. This is why insurance contracts contain provisions that cause trouble if you do things to impair the insurer's ability to sue a tortfeasor who causes you a covered loss. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Resumes

On job applications where the site asks you to upload a resume, and when you preview it, it's changed it into a standard format, such as changed fonts and removed page breaks, do they see the same thing as the preview or do they see the actual word doc file you uploaded? -- 02:50, 15 November 2014 194.66.246.20

Best thing to do is to convert your document to a pdf file, that way the fonts won't change. Uhlan ^talk 03:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

it doesn't accept PDFs. Only docx, txt or rtf. The preview basically shows it as a standardised format. It has all the details you put in on the website, then it says Resume and your resume is below in the same font as the details section. So I'm not sure if that's what they see or if they can still download a copy of the original docx file.

I don't know the answer (I didn't know that sites did this). But if they are going to the trouble of reformatting your submission, they are doing it for a reason, and I would suppose that the reason was in order to give the people who view the applications a consistent appearance to look at. Why else would they bother to reformat? --ColinFine (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad software, old practices... who knows. Most job application webpages now will at least maintain formatting on a Word doc, even if they don't accept PDFs. At least you know that if it's reformatting your resume, it's going to reformat everyone else's. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In the case of many job applications, it's quite probable that nobody sees your resume (or CV as it would be called in BrEng) - at least on the initial sift. It is most likely "read" by a computer which is looking for specific words and phrases [2] [3] [4]. The fact that the particular site(s) you are using removes formatting would lead me to suspect that automated sifting is taking place. Valiantis (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you review the result of what they have done to your resume very carefully. I have had a recruitment agency truly mangle mine. My resume was laid out using indentation to show that while working for one company I did separate packages of work over the years for several of their customers. I assumed the software that scanned my resume ignored any indenting, paragraphs, bold, headings etc, because it made it seem I had worked 6 jobs at once then had no work for 7 years! I got them to correct it immediately because it was a huge misrepresentation of my employment history. Astronaut (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)