Question for legal eagles regarding old cases.

[MP301]

What happens when a case that is settled (fails)for specific reasons and those reasons later change/ no longer apply? Can those cases be pursued again is it a case of "whats done is done?"

Examples I noticed whilst cruising the awsome CG Wiki...

Kasler V Lockyer - That challenged the 1989 Roberti-Roos AW control act that failed because there was no RKBA in the CA constitution.... The 2nd will now be applied to the states via Macdonald, does that change anything?

Silveira V Lockyer - The 2002 challenge to the Roberti-Roos AW control act. The Wiki says it failed because the 9th said there was no individual 2nd Amendment right....which is no longer the case thanks to Heller.

What happens, (or can happen), to old stuff if the cumstances change.

Im no legal scholar be any means. I was just curious on how these things work.

Note: Im less interested as to why one not want to open old cases as much as I am curious as to IF one could open old cases if it was deemed necessary.

[hoffmang]

Kasler remains "good law" in that it finds no RKBA in the CA constitution. However, the legal reasoning that failed may be brought again as reasoning that flows from the Federal RKBA. Silveira only stands for the equal protection claim and everything else is invalidated by Heller/McDonald and can be brought again.

-Gene

[MP301]

So, an old decision on something CAN be revistited if the reasoning behind the dispostion has changed due to other cases.

Are either of thiose two mentioned worth revisiting or are things going to be dealt with another way?

[Librarian]

Note: Im less interested as to why one not want to open old cases as much as I am curious as to IF one could open old cases if it was deemed necessary.

But to address this point only, those cases, as such, are at their permanent terminal condition. If for no other reason, there are issues of timeliness of further appeals.

A similar argument, under new law, might be entered as a new case.

[travelshot]

So, an old decision on something CAN be revistited if the reasoning behind the dispostion has changed due to other cases.

Are either of thiose two mentioned worth revisiting or are things going to be dealt with another way?

No, as to the technical answer. You cannot "re-open" an old case.
But you can have a new case with the same (now applicable) arguments.

[MP301]

Got it. I think that is more what I meant anyway. I didnt think you could actually open an old case. I wondered if you could attack the same issue that didnt fly last time because circumstances have changed....Thanks for your input all...