Third Circuit and the District Court, however, are not binding on either this Court or the Superior Court. Najawicz v. People, 58 V.I. 315, 328-29 (V.I. 2013). 11 In Walters v. Parrott, 58 V.I. 391, 404 (V.I. 2013), this Court quoted section 28 of the Third Restatement — which addresses equitable distribution of property by unmarried cohabitants — in providing an example of the Superior Court’s jurisdiction over equitable actions. This citation to the Restatement was not necessary to the result in that case, and therefore was merely dictum. See Lander v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92, 98 n.6 (3d Cir. 1999) (“we have repeatedly held that dicta are not binding”). Furthermore, we recognize that in Walters this Court cited 1 V.I.C. § 4 as authority despite its repeal. See Banks, 55 V.I. at 974-80 (<HOLDING>). But we recently explained that the Superior
recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it recognizing that this court and the united states supreme court have embraced the notion that so long as the sentence imposed is within the maximum limit set by the legislature an appellate court is without power to review the sentence recognizing this purpose albeit implicitly recognizing that the statute vesting this court with the supreme judicial power of the territory implicitly repealed 1 vic  4 recognizing that the legislature implicitly repealed 1 vic  4 through its adoption of 4 vic  21 in 2004