In Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, the California Supreme Court addressed defense counsel's point. There, the municipal court in Santa Clara County granted the defendant's motion for a new trial based upon its belief it was bound by a case out of the Second District Court of Appeal, which at that time was the only case relevant to the motion. (Id. at pp. 453-454.) The plaintiff appealed to the appellate department of the superior court, which vacated the municipal court's grant of the new trial motion because it believed the Second District's case was wrongfully decided. (Id. at pp. 454-455.) On review, the California Supreme Court held the appellate department's "determination was clearly in excess" of its jurisdiction. (Auto Equity, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 455.) The court explained: "Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. . . . The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. . . . It is not the function of inferior courts to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court." (Ibid.) In Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) the appellate department of a superior court disagreed with the reasoning of an appellate court decision and refused to follow it. (Auto Equity Sales, supra, 57 Cal.2d at pp. 454, 456.) The court in Auto Equity Sales concluded that the superior court acted in excess of its jurisdiction because, under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts are bound by and must follow the decisions of higher courts. (Id. at p. 455.) Otherwise, the court explained, the doctrine of stare decisis ?makes no sense." (Ibid.) Significantly, however, the Auto Equity Sales court did not determine whether the appellate court decision that the superior court refused to follow was correct or incorrect. (Auto Equity Sales, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 457.) Moreover, the court noted that, if the appellate court's decision was later overruled, any new decision would apply only prospectively and not retroactively, because the parties would have reasonably relied on the Court of Appeal's earlier decision. (Ibid.) In sum, the California Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to annul a judgment of the superior court appellate department that exceeded that court's jurisdiction by refusing to follow the holding announced in a Court of Appeal opinion. And in Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal. 2d 280 109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715, the court held that a writ of prohibition lies "to prevent a lower appellate court from reviewing on appeal a matter over which it has no jurisdiction." ( Id. at p. 287.)