Restatement rule in Virgin Islands

2023But while we have held that “the Superior Court need not consider itself foreclosed from adopting a different common law rule” when the only binding precedent applicable to it pre-dated Banks, Connor, 60 V.I. at 605 n.1, this is not tantamount to dispensing with the long-standing rule “that the Superior Court may not overrule [the] Supreme Court.” Gerace v. Bentley, 65 V.I. 289, 304 (V.I. 2016) (quoting Ebersole v. Southeastern Pa. Transp.

2023But while we have held that “the Superior Court need not consider itself foreclosed from adopting a different common law rule” when the only binding precedent applicable to it pre-dated Banks, Connor, 60 V.I. at 605 n.1, this is not tantamount to dispensing with the long-standing rule “that the Superior Court may not overrule [the] Supreme Court.” Gerace v. Bentley, 65 V.I. 289, 304 (V.I. 2016) (quoting Ebersole v. Southeastern Pa. Transp.

2023Thus, in this circumstance the first factor must necessarily strongly favor the Restatement or majority rule, since a series of non-binding Superior Court decisions—regardless of how many in number—can never establish a greater reliance interest among the legal community and the public than a precedential decision of this Court. ¶ 17 As to the second factor—the approaches taken by other United States jurisdictions—most jurisdictions to consider the question have also elected to follow the Restatement approach, either by adopting the language of section 158 largely verbatim or choosing slightly

2023Thus, in this circumstance the first factor must necessarily strongly favor the Restatement or majority rule, since a series of non-binding Superior Court decisions—regardless of how many in number—can never establish a greater reliance interest among the legal community and the public than a precedential decision of this Court. ¶ 17 As to the second factor—the approaches taken by other United States jurisdictions—most jurisdictions to consider the question have also elected to follow the Restatement approach, either by adopting the language of section 158 largely verbatim or choosing slightly

2023Thus, in this circumstance the first factor must necessarily strongly favor the Restatement or majority rule, since a series of non-binding Superior Court decisions—regardless of how many in number—can never establish a greater reliance interest among the legal community and the public than a precedential decision of this Court. ¶ 17 As to the second factor—the approaches taken by other United States jurisdictions—most jurisdictions to consider the question have also elected to follow the Restatement approach, either by adopting the language of section 158 largely verbatim or choosing slightly

2023Thus, in this circumstance the first factor must necessarily strongly favor the Restatement or majority rule, since a series of non-binding Superior Court decisions—regardless of how many in number—can never establish a greater reliance interest among the legal community and the public than a precedential decision of this Court. ¶ 17 As to the second factor—the approaches taken by other United States jurisdictions—most jurisdictions to consider the question have also elected to follow the Restatement approach, either by adopting the language of section 158 largely verbatim or choosing slightly

2011If there is no Restatement rule on point, § 4 directs the court to the common law rules as generally understood and applied in the United States.’ ” 792 F.2d 387, 389 (3d Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).

2011See also Johnson v. Calado, 159 Wis. 2d 446 , 464 N.W.2d 647, 653 (1991) (“We do not imply that there is no argument for the Restatement rule, but hypothetical advantages do not outweigh the salutary experience Wisconsin has had with the rule.”).

2011See also Johnson v. Calado, 159 Wis. 2d 446 , 464 N.W.2d 647, 653 (1991) (“We do not imply that there is no argument for the Restatement rule, but hypothetical advantages do not outweigh the salutary experience Wisconsin has had with the rule.”).

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2009See also Abdallah v. Callender, 28 V.I. 416, 428 , 1 F.3d 141, 147 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that common law only applies in the absence of local law or a Restatement rule); Co-Build Companies, Inc., v. Virgin Islands Refinery Corp., 15 V.I. 528, 533 , 570 F.2d 492, 494 (3d Cir. 1978) (“When no precedents relate specifically to the adjudication of a Virgin Islands dispute, the courts are directed to turn to the various Restatements of Law, approved by the American Law Institute, which are to provide the rules of decision for such cases ‘in the absence of local laws to the contrary.’ ”); Skeoch v

2007After reiterating the longstanding test in determining whether a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing, see Hill, 474 U.S. at 56 , 106 S. Ct. at 369 , the Court applied the rationale in Strickland by stating that, We hold, therefore, that the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in [McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. at 771 , 90 S. Ct. at 1449 (1970) (holding that a defendant who is represented by counsel during the

2007After reiterating the longstanding test in determining whether a guilty plea is voluntary and knowing, see Hill, 474 U.S. at 56 , 106 S. Ct. at 369 , the Court applied the rationale in Strickland by stating that, We hold, therefore, that the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in [McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. at 771 , 90 S. Ct. at 1449 (1970) (holding that a defendant who is represented by counsel during the