by the parties.” Banks, 55 V.I. at 984 n.9. 6 In White v. Spenceley Realty, LLC, 53 V.I. 666, 679-80 (V.I. 2010), White argued that the “evidence show[ed] that there was an ongoing and persistent problem” creating constructive notice of a dangerous condition. But we affirmed summary judgment on the ground that Spenceley Realty — as the lessor — had no duty to inspect the premises, and only-had a duty to repair once White — the lessee — notified Spenceley of an unsafe condition on the property. Id. Similarly, in Williams, we declined to decide whether the related “mode of operation” rule applies in the Virgin Islands. 50 V.I. at 201. 7 We also note that the decisions of the Appellate Division serve only as persuasive authority on this Court. See Defoe v. Phillip, 56 V.I. 109, 119 (V.I.) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 702 F.3d 735 (3d Cir. 2012). For the
holding that this court considers third circuit and appellate division case law as persuasive authority only holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending holding that when intervening supreme court case law is clearly irreconcilable with a prior circuit decision a panel of this court is bound by the later and controlling authority and should reject the prior circuit opinion holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues