candidates to access the ballot. In Mandel, the Court held that the summary affirmance in its prior case did not mandate the result reached by the district court because, unlike the Maryland procedure, the Pennsylvania requirements entailed both an early filing date and a twenty-one day limitation on signature gathering. Id. at 177, 97 S.Ct. 2238. The Court stated that “a summary affirmance is an affirmance of the judgment only.” Id. at 176, 97 S.Ct. 2238. The Court further explained, “Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal question ... prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” Id.; cf. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344-45, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975) (<HOLDING>) The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the
holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law holding that the supreme courts prior summary affirmance of a california appellate decision upholding the constitutionality of an obscenity statute precluded a threejudge federal court from finding that the same statute was unconstitutional recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired holding that an appellate court can review a district courts decision to remand when that decision rests upon a ground not authorized by statute