One way to do this in federal court is to cite
only unpublished opinions, which «are not binding precedent.»
Not exact matches
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unpublished opinion released by the court.
This list is by no means comprehensive: I typically focus
only on published
opinions in my blog coverage and there may be many notable reasonableness outcomes among
unpublished opinions.
Sometimes I read an
unpublished opinion that, to my thinking, clearly doesn't meet that criteria and the
only reason I can figure for why the
opinion remains
unpublished is that the Court of Appeals wants to spare the trial judge embarrassment.
Sometimes I read an
unpublished opinion that, to my thinking, clearly doesn't meet that criteria and the
only reason I can figure -LSB-...]
This Comment joins other work in arguing that the legitimacy of stare decisis depends upon widespread publication.4 The doctrine of stare decisis itself emerged
only with the consistent and reliable publication of court
opinions, 5 and legal processes that do not result in the issuance of publicly available
opinions, such as settlements and arbitrations, generally lack stare decisis norms altogether.6 Although previous scholarship has discussed the proper role of stare decisis in the context of «
unpublished»
opinions, 7 which make up around eighty percent of all United States courts of appeals
opinions8 (and are usually publicly available despite their name), 9 this Comment provides the first examination of the tenability of stare decisis as applied to truly secret
opinions like those of the FISC.
In a short and
unpublished per curiam
opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a lower court decision affirming multiple listing service's requirement that
only members of a REALTOR ® association could participate in the multiple listing service.