45:, each judicial decision becomes part of the body of law used in future decisions. However, some courts reserve certain decisions, leaving them "unpublished", and thus not available for citation in future cases. It has been argued that non-publication helps stem the problem of too much written material creating too little new law. Specifically, the number of federal appeals filed annually grew from 23,200 to 33,360 between 1980 and 1985, and 55,000 federal appeals were filed in 2000. Conversely, studies have shown how non-publication can distort the law.
157:
affected the storage costs, research costs and intellectual costs associated with publication of opinions. A "shadow body of law" has developed, leading to concerns about unfair use and access. It has been argued that the "hidden" conflict between published and unpublished decisions is hard to square with fundamental principles of equal justice. Unpublished decisions have also been criticized as an abdication of responsibility, in that it frees judges from the responsibility of preparing publication-worthy opinions in every case.
103:
recommended that federal appellate courts publish only those decisions "which are of general precedential value." Since 1976, every federal appellate court has adopted rules limiting the publication of opinions. Most federal appellate courts publish less than half of their decisions on the merits. As
164:
The idea that unpublished opinions would be treated by courts as if they did not exist because they were relatively inaccessible to many lawyers, were thought to involve only well-established legal principles, and were otherwise unsuitable for the precedential status usually accorded to decisions of
160:
Critics also have shown that courts often do not adhere to the announced criteria for designating an opinion as unpublished. Thus, Donald Songer showed that many unpublished opinions reverse the decision of the lower, district court. He reasons that such a decision cannot be considered a matter of
156:
There is active debate on the fairness issues raised by non-publication, and the utility of non-publication in the light of computerization of court records. It has been argued that the behavior of judges and litigants indicates that "unpublished" does not mean "unimportant" and that technology has
628:
292:
161:
long-settled law, given the lower court's error. And
Michael Hannon noted the frequency in which unpublished opinions include a dissent or concurrence, another sign that the case did not involve settled law.
299:
260:
323:
76:
123:
115:
72:
68:
64:
60:
100:
150:
130:
266:
524:
No-Citation Rule for
Unpublished Opinions: Do the Ends of Expediency for Overloaded Appellate Courts Justify the Means of Secrecy, The
138:
263:
668:
653:
573:
488:
204:
141:) was then the chair of this committee. More than 500 public comments were received from supporters and opponents of the new rule.
556:
539:
187:
522:
505:
347:
221:
471:
105:
407:
149:
The issue of unpublished decisions has been described as the most controversial to be faced by the
Advisory Committee on the
365:"The Myth of the Disposable Opinion: Unpublished Opinions and Government Litigants in the United States Courts of Appeals"
425:
110:
88:
51:
is the legal process by which a judge or justices of a court decide whether or not a decision is to be published in
84:
608:
Hannon, Michael (2001). "A Closer Look at
Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals".
400:
431:
403:, Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Business of United States Courts, Supplemental Table S-3,
129:
On
September 20, 2005 the Judicial Conference of the United States voted to approve rule 32.1 of the
384:
490:
Much Ado about Little: Explaining the Sturm und Drang over the
Citation of Unpublished Opinions
317:
246:
242:
238:
589:
Songer, Donald (1990). "Criteria for
Publication of Opinions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals".
457:
376:
56:
411:
83:
is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished. The
63:
had the highest rate of non-publication (92%), and more than 85% of the decisions in the
34:. An unpublished opinion is a decision of a court that is not available for citation as
558:
Those
Unpublished Opinions: An Appropriate Expedience or an Abdication of Responsibility
507:
Digital
Influence: Technology and Unpublished Opinions in the Federal Courts of Appeals
662:
166:
364:
404:
134:
133:, allowing citation of unpublished decisions issued after January 1, 2007. Judge
52:
17:
42:
223:
Closer Look at
Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals, A
35:
118:
struck down non-publication, but the decision was later declared moot. In
38:
because the court deems the case to have insufficient precedential value.
388:
380:
650:- Issue group seeking rule changes, Committee for the Rule of Law
647:
630:
Publishing Unpublished Opinions: A Review of the Federal Appendix
473:
Citation of Unpublished Opinions in the Federal Courts of Appeals
55:. "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the
541:
Ninth Circuit's Unpublished Opinions: Denial of Equal Justice
206:
Precedential Value of Unpublished Judicial Opinions, The
352:, vol. 1, J. App. Prac. & Process, p. 219
226:, vol. 3, J. App. Prac. & Process, p. 199
493:, vol. 62, Wash. & Lee L. Rev., p. 1429
165:
the federal appellate courts has been described as a
654:
A Librarian’s Guide to Unpublished Judicial Opinions
448:, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001).
279:
Unpublished Appellate Opinions Are Still Commonplace
575:Citation of Unpublished Opinions as Precedent
561:, vol. 32, Hofstra L. Rev., p. 1215
239:"Unpublished Decisions and Precedent Shaping"
8:
578:, vol. 55, Hastings L.J., p. 1235
476:, vol. 74, Fordham L. Rev., p. 23
209:, vol. 39, Mercer L. Rev., p. 477
527:, vol. 50, S. C. L. Rev., p. 235
192:, vol. 60, Ohio St. L.J., p. 177
126:upheld non-publication as constitutional.
510:, vol. 85, Cal. L. Rev., p. 541
124:U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
116:U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
61:U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
101:Judicial Conference of the United States
544:, vol. 61, A.B.A. J., p. 1224
521:Carpenter, Charles E. Jr. (1998–1999),
178:
460:, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
458:Rule 32.1 Citing Judicial Dispositions
336:California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1125
322:: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (
315:
7:
151:Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
131:Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
572:Pearson, Martha Dragi (2003–2004),
30:is the practice of a court issuing
405:2004 Annual Report of the Director
277:Aaron S. Bayer (August 24, 2009),
189:In Defense of Unpublished Opinions
139:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
470:Schiltz, Patrick J. (2005–2006),
28:Non-publication of legal opinions
627:Brian P. Brooks (Spring 2002),
349:Unpublished Opinions: A Comment
203:Weaver, George M. (1987–1988),
106:United States Courts of Appeals
555:Fox, Lawrence J. (2003–2004),
108:decisions are unpublished. In
104:of the year 2004, some 80% of
87:may depublish opinions of the
1:
186:Martin, Boyce F. Jr. (1999),
487:Schiltz, Patrick J. (2005),
363:Lauren K. Robel (Apr 1989),
610:J. Appellateice and Process
426:Anastasoff v. United States
346:Arnold, Richard S. (1999),
111:Anastasoff v. United States
89:California Courts of Appeal
685:
538:Gardner, James N. (1975),
281:, The National Law Journal
434: (8th Cir. 2000).
135:Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.
59:. From 2000 to 2008, the
669:Law of the United States
504:Shuldberg, Kirt (1997),
220:Hannon, Michael (2001),
153:in the 1990s and 2000s.
137:(since appointed to the
85:California Supreme Court
237:Rempell, Scott (2016).
401:Leonidas Ralph Mecham
49:Selective publication
432:223 F.3d 898
32:unpublished opinions
369:Michigan Law Review
648:NonPublication.com
410:2006-02-14 at the
79:went unpublished.
445:Hart v. Massanari
259:On Google books:
120:Hart v. Massanari
41:In the system of
16:(Redirected from
676:
635:
634:
624:
618:
617:
605:
599:
598:
586:
580:
579:
569:
563:
562:
552:
546:
545:
535:
529:
528:
518:
512:
511:
501:
495:
494:
484:
478:
477:
467:
461:
455:
449:
447:
441:
435:
429:
421:
415:
398:
392:
391:
360:
354:
353:
343:
337:
334:
328:
327:
321:
313:
311:
310:
304:
298:. Archived from
297:
289:
283:
282:
274:
268:
257:
251:
250:
234:
228:
227:
217:
211:
210:
200:
194:
193:
183:
57:Federal Appendix
21:
684:
683:
679:
678:
677:
675:
674:
673:
659:
658:
644:
639:
638:
633:, The Green Bag
626:
625:
621:
607:
606:
602:
588:
587:
583:
571:
570:
566:
554:
553:
549:
537:
536:
532:
520:
519:
515:
503:
502:
498:
486:
485:
481:
469:
468:
464:
456:
452:
443:
442:
438:
423:
422:
418:
412:Wayback Machine
399:
395:
381:10.2307/1289226
362:
361:
357:
345:
344:
340:
335:
331:
314:
308:
306:
302:
295:
293:"Archived copy"
291:
290:
286:
276:
275:
271:
258:
254:
236:
235:
231:
219:
218:
214:
202:
201:
197:
185:
184:
180:
175:
147:
97:
23:
22:
18:Non-publication
15:
12:
11:
5:
682:
680:
672:
671:
661:
660:
657:
656:
651:
643:
642:External links
640:
637:
636:
619:
600:
581:
564:
547:
530:
513:
496:
479:
462:
450:
436:
416:
393:
375:(5): 940–962,
355:
338:
329:
284:
269:
252:
229:
212:
195:
177:
176:
174:
171:
146:
143:
96:
93:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
681:
670:
667:
666:
664:
655:
652:
649:
646:
645:
641:
632:
631:
623:
620:
615:
611:
604:
601:
596:
592:
585:
582:
577:
576:
568:
565:
560:
559:
551:
548:
543:
542:
534:
531:
526:
525:
517:
514:
509:
508:
500:
497:
492:
491:
483:
480:
475:
474:
466:
463:
459:
454:
451:
446:
440:
437:
433:
428:
427:
420:
417:
413:
409:
406:
402:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
359:
356:
351:
350:
342:
339:
333:
330:
325:
319:
305:on 2011-09-30
301:
294:
288:
285:
280:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
256:
253:
248:
244:
240:
233:
230:
225:
224:
216:
213:
208:
207:
199:
196:
191:
190:
182:
179:
172:
170:
168:
167:legal fiction
162:
158:
154:
152:
144:
142:
140:
136:
132:
127:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
99:In 1964, the
94:
92:
90:
86:
82:
81:Depublication
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
44:
39:
37:
33:
29:
19:
629:
622:
613:
609:
603:
594:
590:
584:
574:
567:
557:
550:
540:
533:
523:
516:
506:
499:
489:
482:
472:
465:
453:
444:
439:
424:
419:
396:
372:
368:
358:
348:
341:
332:
307:. Retrieved
300:the original
287:
278:
272:
255:
232:
222:
215:
205:
198:
188:
181:
163:
159:
155:
148:
128:
119:
109:
98:
80:
77:11th Circuit
48:
47:
40:
31:
27:
26:
145:Controversy
73:9th Circuit
69:5th Circuit
65:3rd Circuit
591:Judicature
309:2011-11-11
173:References
53:a reporter
43:common law
36:precedent
663:Category
414:, p. 39.
408:Archived
318:cite web
389:1289226
247:2785752
95:History
616:: 199.
597:: 307.
430:,
387:
265:, and
245:
122:, the
114:, the
75:, and
385:JSTOR
303:(PDF)
296:(PDF)
324:link
243:SSRN
377:doi
665::
612:.
595:73
593:.
383:,
373:87
371:,
367:,
320:}}
316:{{
262:,
241:.
169:.
91:.
71:,
67:,
614:3
379::
326:)
312:.
249:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.