A hypothetical question about what is the obligation of the judge in civil trial. Let's say some people at the middle class high school decided to create a Latin class. The only 10 white kids at the district's other high school on the wrong side of the tracks happen to sign up for Latin(not offered on their campus), and to make room, 10 kids of color are transferred from the quality school to the poor school.
Ignoring some of the improbabilities, pretend a mom of one of the transferred kids files a complaint without a lawyer (no ACLU etc. involved). The mom complains it's not right and not fair to her kid, but doesn't present much of a case other than heartfelt passion. The school district with the aid of a couple of the white transfer families presents a splendid case with the Latin justification and some lottery or map that picked the poor kids who transferred.
Is it the responsibility to know Brown vs. Topeka board of education and use it as a basis for her ruling even if the mother filing the complaint did not?
What gets higher priority, the laws and the judge's knowledge or interpretation of the law, or which side presents the better case?
Also, just because one previous case ruled one way what justifies another similar case being ruled the same way? Isn't it possible that each side can find a similar case that was ruled to reflect their position in the case?
If you enjoy these questions and want to help a good dude getting screwed over by the legal system and corporate greed, please check out my other posts and give me some advice. Thanks.