Sentences with phrase «federal appellate court opinions»

I said, «90 % of the federal appellate court opinions are unpublished opinions.

There are forums for every court and judge in the federal judiciary, as well as forums for federal judicial nominees (here is the forum for John Roberts) and federal appellate court opinions.

First, readability scores for federal appellate court opinions and state supreme court opinions were similar.131 Second, readability scores from U.S. Supreme Court opinions were lower than opinions from the other courts.132 Third, briefs from U.S. Supreme Court cases had lower readability scores than briefs from the other courts.133 Finally, at the U.S. Supreme Court level, the opinion readability scores were significantly lower than the brief readability scores.134

Not exact matches

Results will include opinions issued by the SEC and federal appellate courts that relate to FINRA disciplinary actions that have been appealed.

Starting in 2011, Public.Resource.Org, an organization devoted to putting government documents in the public domain, will begin a weekly release of HTML versions of all slip and final opinions of the appellate and supreme courts of all 50 states and the federal government.

And so it is with Google's entry into the legal research field with its announcement yesterday that Google Scholar now allows users to search full - text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state appellate and trial courts.

For example, Michael Murray used manual review and coding to study the use of parentheticals in 200 federal appellate court briefs and 107 Supreme Court opinioncourt briefs and 107 Supreme Court opinionCourt opinions.256

Rather, it merely proves that the different regional federal appellate courts follow somewhat different rules governing the order in which the judges on the three - judge panel that decided the case are listed on an opinion.

Michael Murray studied rhetorical uses of parentheticals in federal appellate briefs and opinions.110 He drew a cross-sectional sample of briefs filed in several appellate courts from February through July of 2011.

Their independent variable was readability, as measured by the Flesch Reading Ease score calculated by Microsoft Word.127 For federal appellate and state supreme court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion (present or absent), and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an opinion dismissing a plaintiff's appeal based on the plaintiff's failure to object to an alleged error at trial.

A dozen judges (nine federal judges) have used it, including in opinions for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court of Kentucky, several federal district courts and state appellate courts.

Currently, Google Scholar allows you to search and read published opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax and bankruptcy courts since...

A large number of federal appellate courts state on the face of their precedential opinions that the date on which the opinion issued is the date on which the case was decided.

The Web site of the St. Louis - based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in my opinion, currently ranks as the best of all federal appellate court Web sCourt of Appeals, in my opinion, currently ranks as the best of all federal appellate court Web scourt Web sites.

A tremendously helpful feature that the 8th Circuit is the only federal appellate court to offer is a daily summary of the issues presented and the outcome of each published and unpublished opinion released by the court.

A Westlaw search reveals that «schmo» has appeared more than a handful of times in federal district court opinions and in the appellate rulings of various state courts.

So far, only three published studies have analyzed the association between brief readability and case outcome, 50 and no studies have analyzed that association in the trial courts, where most lawyers practice.51 Long and Christensen sampled 882 appellate briefs from the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, and state supreme courts.52 Their dependent variable was the outcome of the appeal (affirmed or reversed), while their independent variable was readability measured by the Flesch Reading Ease score as calculated by Microsoft Word.53 For federal appellate and state supreme court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stuCourt, federal appellate courts, and state supreme courts.52 Their dependent variable was the outcome of the appeal (affirmed or reversed), while their independent variable was readability measured by the Flesch Reading Ease score as calculated by Microsoft Word.53 For federal appellate and state supreme court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stucourt briefs, the researchers coded control variables for federal or state court, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stucourt, standard of review, presence of a dissenting opinion, and readability of the opinion deciding the appeal.54 For United States Supreme Court briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their stuCourt briefs, the researchers coded control variables for constitutional issue, criminal or civil case, presence of a dissenting opinion, and opinion readability.55 They found no statistically significant correlation between readability and outcome in the briefs in their study.56

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing the theory of premises liability as it pertained to a case involving a child who was seriously injured when a metal stanchion fell atop his finger.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a woman who slipped and fell on some loose stones outside a home improvement store.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit illustrating an issue that may have an impact on some Indiana premises liability cases involving children who have been injured while in the company of their parents.

«A pilot project giving the public free, text - searchable, online - access to court opinions now is available to all federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts....»

There are a wide variety of courts — state and federal, trial and appellate, specialty — and the work can vary widely as well, but typically, clerks read briefs, attend court proceedings, write bench memoranda analyzing parties» arguments, advise the judge on the disposition of a case, and draft opinions.

The Report will initially consist of HTML of all slip and final opinions of the appellate and supreme courts of the 50 states and the federal government.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit illustrating an issue that may have an impact on some...

The Court of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedencourt, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedfederal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedFederal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedential.

Currently, Google Scholar allows you to search and read published opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and US Supreme Court cases since court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and US Supreme Court cases since Court cases since 1791.

The first entry is for the Federal Digital System (FDsys) and describes the current content of the United States Courts Opinions Collection, which now includes «sixty - five courts (nine appellate courts, twenty - one district courts, and thirty - five bankruptcy coCourts Opinions Collection, which now includes «sixty - five courts (nine appellate courts, twenty - one district courts, and thirty - five bankruptcy cocourts (nine appellate courts, twenty - one district courts, and thirty - five bankruptcy cocourts, twenty - one district courts, and thirty - five bankruptcy cocourts, and thirty - five bankruptcy courtscourts).

Where do you stand on the question of allowing citation to «unpublished» opinions; do you believe that federal appellate court panels should be able to designate some of their rulings as «non-precedential» upon issuance, or should the precedential value of an opinion be left to later panels to determine; and why?

Do you believe that federal appellate court panels should be able to designate some of their rulings as «non-precedential» upon issuance, or should the precedential value of an opinion be left to later panels to determine; and why?