What type of authority is a definition provided by the highest court in state B when referenced by the highest court in state A?

The definition provided by the highest court in state B is considered persuasive authority when referenced by the highest court in state A. This is because while it carries significant weight and can influence decisions in another jurisdiction, it does not have binding effect on the courts in state A. Each state operates under its own legal framework, and the decisions made by the highest court in one state do not impose legal obligations on the courts in another state. Therefore, the court in state A may find the definition useful or compelling but is not required to follow it, thereby categorizing it as persuasive rather than mandatory or primary authority.

Mandatory authority would imply that the court in state A must follow the ruling from state B, which is not the case here. Primary authority refers to authoritative legal documents such as statutes, regulations, and case law from the jurisdiction in question, while non-authoritative resources would generally include commentary or secondary sources that do not directly enforce legal obligations. Thus, the role of the definition from state B as a guide rather than a mandate solidifies its classification as persuasive authority.