Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Copy-Paste Precedent, Brian Soucek
Copy-Paste Precedent, Brian Soucek
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Overturning The Last Stone: The Final Step In Returning Precedential Status To All Opinions, David R. Cleveland
Overturning The Last Stone: The Final Step In Returning Precedential Status To All Opinions, David R. Cleveland
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
A Snapshot Of Briefs, Opinions, And Citations In Federal Appeals, Robert Timothy Reagan
A Snapshot Of Briefs, Opinions, And Citations In Federal Appeals, Robert Timothy Reagan
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Federal And State Court Rules Governing Publication And Citation Of Opinions: An Update, Melissa M. Serfass, Jessie Wallace Cranford
Federal And State Court Rules Governing Publication And Citation Of Opinions: An Update, Melissa M. Serfass, Jessie Wallace Cranford
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
No-Citation Rules Under Siege: A Battlefield Report And Analysis, Stephen R. Barnett
No-Citation Rules Under Siege: A Battlefield Report And Analysis, Stephen R. Barnett
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
From Anastasoff To Hart To West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts Under No-Citation Rules, Stephen R. Barnett
From Anastasoff To Hart To West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts Under No-Citation Rules, Stephen R. Barnett
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Preface: Anastasoff, Unpublished Opinions, And "No-Citation" Rules, Coleen M. Barger
Preface: Anastasoff, Unpublished Opinions, And "No-Citation" Rules, Coleen M. Barger
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
In the wake of the publication of Anastasoff v. United States a new round of debate has begun over the propriety of unpublished opions and their status as precedent. Circuit courts across the nation vary widely in how this "principle of policy" is treated, thus prompting the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process to call for papers, which are included herein.
The Unpublished, Non-Precedential Decision: An Uncomfortable Legality?, Melissa H. Weresh
The Unpublished, Non-Precedential Decision: An Uncomfortable Legality?, Melissa H. Weresh
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2000 that its rule prohibiting the citation of unpublished opinions was unconstitutional. The decision was ultimately vacated en banc. The legality of this prohibition merits consideration by the United States Supreme Court.
Unpublished Decisions In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: Making The Decision To Publish, Stephen L. Wasby
Unpublished Decisions In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: Making The Decision To Publish, Stephen L. Wasby
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The rise of cases brought before federal appellate courts has caused most opinions to be designated as unpublished. This practice has created much controversy. This essay addresses the decision to publish, guidelines for publication, and enforcement of those guidelines within courts.
Constitutionality Of "No-Citation" Rules, Salem M. Katsh, Alex V. Chachkes
Constitutionality Of "No-Citation" Rules, Salem M. Katsh, Alex V. Chachkes
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No-citation rules raise serious constitutional concerns. Assuming that it is constitutional to designate an opinion as nonprecedential, it is not constitutional to prohibit citing an opinion. No-citation rules are unconstitutional for two reasons. The first, citation prohibitions interfere with a litigant’s First Amendment right of speech and petition. Second, citation prohibitions violate the separation of powers.
California's Curious Practice Of "Pocket Review", Steven B. Katz
California's Curious Practice Of "Pocket Review", Steven B. Katz
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The majority of any California appellate panel is permitted to certify an opinion for publication that establishes new law or modifies existing rules. The California Supreme court can reverse any publication decision without giving any reason. This practice is called "pocket review." Pocket reviews risk thwarting legislative intent and sweeping the results under the rug.
Unpublished Opinions: A Comment, Richard S. Arnold
Unpublished Opinions: A Comment, Richard S. Arnold
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The Honorable Richard S. Arnold gives a federal appellate judge’s perspective of the unpublished opinions debate.