Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Call For Uniformity In Appellate Courts' Rules Regarding Citation Of Unpublished Opinions, Analisa Pratt
A Call For Uniformity In Appellate Courts' Rules Regarding Citation Of Unpublished Opinions, Analisa Pratt
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment is divided into seven parts. Part I provides an overview of the current practice concerning citation of unpublished opinions, including a look at how unpublished opinions came into existence, the types of opinions currently published, and the courts' reasoning for limiting citation of unpublished opinions. Part II describes the variations on precedential value an opinion could receive and describes the no-citation rules by circuit. Part III discusses the debate between the Eighth and the Ninth Circuits - the two most vocal circuits on the issue of citability. Part IV deconstructs the reasoning behind no-citation rules. Part V examines …
Riots, Racism, And The Courts, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt
Riots, Racism, And The Courts, Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt
Golden Gate University Law Review
Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This piece is a commencement speech delivered by Judge Reinhardt in May 1992 to the graduating class of Golden Gate University School of Law. The speech was delivered shortly after the riots which took place in Los Angeles, California, in response to the verdict in the Rodney King trial. Portions of this speech were previously published in HARPER'S MAGAZINE. Copyright 1992 BY HARPER'S MAGAZINE. All rights reserved. Reprinted from the August issue by special permission.
Unfairness In Access To And Citation Of Unpublished Federal Court Decisions, Peter Jan Honigsberg, James A. Dikel
Unfairness In Access To And Citation Of Unpublished Federal Court Decisions, Peter Jan Honigsberg, James A. Dikel
Golden Gate University Law Review
An unfair system has evolved over the past fifteen years in the federal courts. The federal courts changed the concept of stare decisis. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States decided that they needed to reduce the increasing workload of the federal judges. The best way to do so, they thought, was to distinguish between decisions. Some would be worthy of publication and some would not be. Thus, federal judges were instructed to separate out those rulings which would be useful to future litigants or which did more than merely repeat and mechanically apply well-settled rules of law. …