Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Unpublished opinions (5)
- Citing unpublished opinions (2)
- Separation of powers (2)
- Unpublished decisions (2)
- Unpublished opinions and precedent (2)
-
- Availability of unpublished decisions (1)
- Board of Veterans' Appeals (1)
- Citation prohibitions (1)
- Colonial judiciary (1)
- Colonial source of law (1)
- Doctrine of precedent (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Inherent powers (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Loss of precedent (1)
- Memorandum dispositions (1)
- Nonpublication and no-citation rules (1)
- Poor reasoning in unpublished opinions (1)
- Publication/nonpublication guidelines (1)
- Publishing decisionmaking (1)
- Quality of unpublished decisions (1)
- Right of speech and petition (1)
- Source of law (1)
- Support of unpublished opinions (1)
- Treatment of unpublished opinions (1)
- United States courts of appeals (1)
- Unpublished opinions and veterans' benefits (1)
- Veterans' benefits (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Law
Preface: Anastasoff, Unpublished Opinions, And "No-Citation" Rules, Coleen M. Barger
Preface: Anastasoff, Unpublished Opinions, And "No-Citation" Rules, Coleen M. Barger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In the wake of the publication of Anastasoff v. United States a new round of debate has begun over the propriety of unpublished opions and their status as precedent.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The Unpublished, Non-Precedential Decision: An Uncomfortable Legality?, Melissa H. Weresh
The Unpublished, Non-Precedential Decision: An Uncomfortable Legality?, Melissa H. Weresh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The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in 2000 that its rule prohibiting the citation of unpublished opinions was unconstitutional.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Unpublished Decisions In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: Making The Decision To Publish, Stephen L. Wasby
Unpublished Decisions In The Federal Courts Of Appeals: Making The Decision To Publish, Stephen L. Wasby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The rise of cases brought before federal appellate courts has caused most opinions to be designated as unpublished.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.
Publicity And The Judicial Power, Daniel N. Hoffman
Publicity And The Judicial Power, Daniel N. Hoffman
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The judicial branch was created in order to ensure that the rule of law and not the rule of man prevailed. Judges must use reasoning and analysis to fulfill this role. Making decisions based on mere coin tosses or without giving a reason for the decision detracts from the rule of law. Issuing decisions that cannot be published or cited also detracts the judicial role of ensuring that law rules the land.
A Closer Look At Unpublished Opinions In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Michael Hannon
A Closer Look At Unpublished Opinions In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Michael Hannon
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Some legal researchers may assume that all cases decided by federal courts are published. However, many United States courts of appeals’ decisions go unpublished. United States courts of appeals’ decisions are important sources of law since they are the court of last resort for most litigants. By making a survey of Westlaw and LEXIS, the author sheds light on some aspects of unpublished opinions.
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.
Anastasoff V. United States And Appeals In Veterans' Cases, Charles G. Mills
Anastasoff V. United States And Appeals In Veterans' Cases, Charles G. Mills
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Many cases regarding veterans' benefits are heard in the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit has a practice of issuing one sentence orders in some cases. This practice benefits veterans by allowing decisions adverse to veterans to be made without creating precedential value. Removing the practice of unpublished opinions in the Federal Circuit would extinguish this benefit.
Are Some Words Better Left Unpublished?: Precedent And The Role Of Unpublished Decisions, K.K. Duvivier
Are Some Words Better Left Unpublished?: Precedent And The Role Of Unpublished Decisions, K.K. Duvivier
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The practice of unpublished decisions and their precedential value causes much controversy. The practice of unpublished opinions creates a solution for how to deal effectively with heavy caseloads. Electronic databases make unpublished decisions readily available, which removes any secrecy that critics fear. Unpublished opinions are treated in one of three ways by the courts. In addition, three pragmatic issues are created by allowing opinions to go unpublished: 1) the availability of these decisions, 2) the quality of the reasoning in unpublished decisions, and 3) the treatment of unpublished opinions as precedent.
Judging In The Days Of The Early Republic: A Critique Of Judge Richard Arnold's Use Of History In Anastasoff V. United States, R. Ben Brown
Judging In The Days Of The Early Republic: A Critique Of Judge Richard Arnold's Use Of History In Anastasoff V. United States, R. Ben Brown
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
Judge Arnold writes in his opinion that courts have the power to interpret or find the law but not create it. He argues that this practice was well established during colonial times and that it was adopted at the nation’s creation. The source of law during the formation of the United States is not as clear as Judge Arnold claims. Courts applied their roles differently in each jurisdiction. The complex history of the appropriate role of the judiciary contradicts Judge Arnold’s claim.
Concluding Thoughts On The Practical And Collateral Consequences Of Anastasoff, J. Thomas Sullivan
Concluding Thoughts On The Practical And Collateral Consequences Of Anastasoff, J. Thomas Sullivan
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
The publication/citation debate inflamed by the Eighth Circuit decision has uncertain long-term implications. Among these impacts is the understanding of the parameters afforded federal courts by Article III of the United States Constitution. A number of other significant questions are raised, as well as including the access to and the reliance on the work product of the appellate courts.