How you, senior guys,( that come to this site as spectators), can identify court cases as " landmark cases"?,
Like the "Ibanez" in MA?
Some say these are " controlling cases"... I wonder, what's the mechanics to ve viewed certain cases as "landmark cases", that " send ripples" to other cases?
Texas is certainly correct that what makes a case a landmark is its influence over other subsequent cases.
But in mentioning "controlling cases", you clearly misunderstand how the law and precedent works.
Court decisions tend to be "authoritative" and thus "controlling" only in the jurisdiction in which a particular court has authority. Thus, a decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in a case like Ibanez is authoritative throughout Massachusetts and BINDING in that state. It is also an authoritative pronouncement of Massachusetts law binding on the Federal Courts hearing and deciding cases in reliance on Massachusetts law, such as the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts in Massachusetts, U.S. District Courts in Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals when hearing Massachusetts appeals, etc.
But a pronouncement of the Massachusetts Supreme Court is NOT really authoritative ANYWHERE ELSE. This doesn't mean that Ibanez is without significance or impact elsewhere. The reasoning of the Massachusetts Court in Ibanez might still be influential and even persuasive to a court in another place.
If you were litigating in another Massachusetts court, Ibanez is absolutely authoritative (as to the questions presented and decided). Elsewhere, other litigants benefit only from the imprimatur that a state supreme court has found a particular argument to be persuasive.
Within a state, also realize that a decision of a state intermediate appellate court may be authoritative up to a point. That is, when there are no other decisions on a particular point of law, the decision of an intermediate appellate court is going to usually be authoritative as to trial courts within the area of authority of the intermediate appellate court and merely influential or persuasive in other parts of the state.
In some smaller states, like Kentucky, the intermediate appellate court -- the Court of Appeals -- has statewide authority. Pennsylvania's Superior Court similarly has statewide jurisdiction.
Other states like Florida, New York, Ohio and Texas have divided the state into appellate districts or departments, etc., each of which overseas the appeals taken from trial courts in particular counties. If an appellate court in one district reaches a particular holding, it would usually be binding on the trial courts in that geographic jurisdiction, but not binding elsewhere. Appellate courts sometimes do reach different opinions on critical issues, as was the case in Ohio prior to the Schwartzwald decision. In Schwartzwald, the Ohio Supreme Court harmonized conflicting rulings of differing Ohio appellate courts.
One thing to be especially vigilant about is that most of the swindlers and scam artists are very quick to trumpeter the favorable decisions, while actively and aggressively concealing the adverse decisions. Be sure to check ALL of the decisions on a particular point of law, because if you only know and understand the decisions that you think are favorable, you may walk into a variety of traps set by the banks.
The scam artists and swindlers don't care if you lose your house. All they want is your $$$ for their scam products! Trumpeting the favorable decisions is one of the ways they generate traffic at their various scam web sites. Once a distressed borrower appears at the site, that person becomes a potential mark for the scams.