While Texas' unique practice saved the state supreme court from having to hear relatively minor cases just to create uniform statewide precedents on those issues, it also makes for lengthy citations to the opinions of the Courts of Appeals, since the subsequent writ history of the case must always be noted (e.g., no writ, writ refused, writ denied, etc.) in order for the reader to determine at a glance whether the cited opinion is binding precedent only in the district of the Court of Appeals in which it was decided, or binding precedent for the entire state. In contrast, California,Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 506 (2008). Florida,Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 1992). and New YorkMountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms, 102 A.D.2d 663, 476 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2d Dept. 1984). solved the problem of creating uniform precedent by simply holding that the first intermediate appellate court to reach a novel question of law always sets binding precedent for the entire state, unless and until another intermediate appellate court expressly disagrees with the first one. Meanwhile, some states, such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, avoid the issue entirely by eschewing regionalized appellate courts; the intermediate appellate courts in these states may hear cases from all parts of the state within their subject-matter jurisdiction.
While Texas' unique practice saved the state supreme court from having to hear relatively minor cases just to create uniform statewide precedents on those issues it also makes for lengthy citations to the opinions of the Courts of Appeals since the subsequent writ history of the case must always be noted (eg no writ writ refused writ denied etc) in order for the reader to determine at a glance whether the cited opinion is binding precedent only in the district of the Court of Appeals in which it was decided or binding precedent for the entire state In contrast CaliforniaSarti v Salt Creek Ltd 167 Cal App 4th 1187 85 Cal Rptr 3d 506 (2008) FloridaPardo v State 596 So 2d 665 666 (Fla 1992) and New YorkMountain View Coach Lines Inc v Storms 102 AD2d 663 476 NYS2d 918 (2d Dept 1984) solved the problem of creating uniform precedent by simply holding that the first intermediate appellate court to reach a novel question of law always sets binding precedent for the entire state unless and until another intermediate appellate court expressly disagrees with the first one Meanwhile some states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey avoid the issue entirely by eschewing regionalized appellate courts; the intermediate appellate courts in these states may hear cases from all parts of the state within their subject-matter jurisdiction