A librarian's guide to unpublished judicial opinions

Law Library Journal

Volumn 96, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 475-501

  Gerken, Joseph L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4344663793     PISSN: 00239283     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (180)

1. ADMIN. OFF. OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, JUDICIAL BUSINESS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS 39 tbl. S3 (2002).
2. Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), vacated as moot on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
3. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
4. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
5. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
6. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
7. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
8. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
9. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
10. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
11. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
12. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
13. See, e.g., Stephen R. Barnett, From Anastasoff to Hart to West's Federal Appendix: The Ground Shifts under No-Citation Rules, 4 J. APP. PRAG. & PROCESS 1 (2002); R. Ben Brown, Judging in the Days of the Early Republic: A Critique of Judge Arnold's Use of History in Anastasoff v. United States, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 355 (2001); Recent Case, Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), 114 HARV. L. REV. 940 (2000); Salem M. Katsh & Alex V. Chachkes, The Constitutionality of "No-Citation" Rules, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 287 (2001); Thomas R. Lee & Lance S. Lehnhof, The Anastasoff Case and the Judicial Power to "Unpublish" Opinions, 77 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 135 (2001); William J. Miller, Note, Chipping Away at the Dam: Anastasoff v. United States and the Future of Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals and Beyond, 50 DRAKE L. REV. 181 (2001); Lance A. Wade, Note, Honda Meets Anastasoff: The Procedural Due Process Argument against Rules Prohibiting Citation to Published Judicial Decisions, 42 B.C. L. REV. 695 (2001); Kenneth Anthony Laretto, Note, Precedent, Judicial Power and the Constitutionality of "No Citation" Rules in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 54 STAN. L. REV. 1037 (2002); Charles R. Eloshway, Note, Say It Ain't So: Non-Precedential Opinions Exceed the Limits of Article III Powers, 70 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 632 (2002); Polly J. Price, Precedent and Judicial Power after the Founding, 42 B.C. L. REV. 81 (2000); Lauren K. Robel, The Practice of Precedent: Anastasoff, Noncitation Rules, and the Meaning of Precedent in an Interpretive Community, 35 IND. L. REV. 399 (2002).
14. See generally Boyce F. Martin, Jr., In Defense of Unpublished Opinions, 60 OHIO ST. L.J. 177 (1999); David S. Tatel, Some Thoughts on Unpublished Decisions, 64 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 815 (1995); Philip Nichols, Jr., Selective Publication of Opinions: One Judge's View, 35 AM. U. L. REV. 909 (1986); George C. Pratt, Summary Orders in the Second Circuit under Rule 0.23,51 BROOK. L. REV. 479 (1985).
15. See generally Boyce F. Martin, Jr., In Defense of Unpublished Opinions, 60 OHIO ST. L.J. 177 (1999); David S. Tatel, Some Thoughts on Unpublished Decisions, 64 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 815 (1995); Philip Nichols, Jr., Selective Publication of Opinions: One Judge's View, 35 AM. U. L. REV. 909 (1986); George C. Pratt, Summary Orders in the Second Circuit under Rule 0.23,51 BROOK. L. REV. 479 (1985).
16. See generally Boyce F. Martin, Jr., In Defense of Unpublished Opinions, 60 OHIO ST. L.J. 177 (1999); David S. Tatel, Some Thoughts on Unpublished Decisions, 64 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 815 (1995); Philip Nichols, Jr., Selective Publication of Opinions: One Judge's View, 35 AM. U. L. REV. 909 (1986); George C. Pratt, Summary Orders in the Second Circuit under Rule 0.23,51 BROOK. L. REV. 479 (1985).
17. See generally Boyce F. Martin, Jr., In Defense of Unpublished Opinions, 60 OHIO ST. L.J. 177 (1999); David S. Tatel, Some Thoughts on Unpublished Decisions, 64 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 815 (1995); Philip Nichols, Jr., Selective Publication of Opinions: One Judge's View, 35 AM. U. L. REV. 909 (1986); George C. Pratt, Summary Orders in the Second Circuit under Rule 0.23,51 BROOK. L. REV. 479 (1985).
18. See generally Edward H. Warren, The Welter of Decisions, 10 ILL. L. REV. 472 (1916); John B. Winslow, The Courts and the Papermills, 10 ILL. L. REV. 157 (1915).
19. See generally Edward H. Warren, The Welter of Decisions, 10 ILL. L. REV. 472 (1916); John B. Winslow, The Courts and the Papermills, 10 ILL. L. REV. 157 (1915).
20. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 11 (1964).
21. DONNA STIENSTRA, UNPUBLISHED DISPOSITIONS: PROBLEMS OF ACCESS AND USE IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS 6-7 (1985).
22. COMM. ON USE OF APPELLATE COURT ENERGIES, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON APPELLATE JUSTICE, STANDARDS FOR PUBLICATION OF JUDICIAL OPINIONS (1973).
23. STIENSTRA, supra note 7, at 7-8.
24. Id. at 40 tbl. 2.
25. ADMIN. OFF. OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, supra note 1, at 39 tbl. S-3; David Greenwald & Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., The Censorial Judiciary, 35 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1133, 1137 & n.3 (2002).
26. ADMIN. OFF. OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, supra note 1, at 39 tbl. S-3; David Greenwald & Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., The Censorial Judiciary, 35 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1133, 1137 & n.3 (2002).
27. See ROY M. MERSKY & DONALD J. DUNN, FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL RESEARCH 50 (8th ed. 2002).
28. See MORRIS L. COHEN ET AL., How TO FIND THE LAW 42, 45-46 (9th ed. 1989).
29. At present, only the Eleventh Circuit does not submit its unpublished opinions to West. The Third Circuit submits the text of some, but not all unpublished opinions to West. E-mail from Tim Gamble, Director, Content Operations, West, to the author 14 (Sept. 10, 2003) (copy on file with author).
30. Id., ¶ 2.
31. Id., ¶ 11.
32. See Lauren K. Robel, The Myth of the Disposable Opinion: Unpublished Opinions and Government Litigants in the United States Courts of Appeals, 87 MICH. L. REV. 940, 956-59 (1989).
33. Id.; David Ranii, How the Plaintiffs' Bar Shares Its Information, NAT'L L.J., July 23, 1984, at 1.
34. Id.; David Ranii, How the Plaintiffs' Bar Shares Its Information, NAT'L L.J., July 23, 1984, at 1.
35. 1ST CIR. R. 36(a).
36. 8TH CIR. R., App. I ¶ 1.
37. 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.1.
38. Ibid. Id.
39. See 1ST CIR. R. 36(b)(1); 4th Cir. R. 36(a); 7TH CIR. R. 53(c)(1). 8TH CIR. R., App. I ¶4; 9TH CIR. R. 36-2; D.C. Cir. R. 36(a)(2).
40. 2ND CIR. R. 0.23.
41. 11TH CIR. R. 36-2.
42. See Stephen L. Wasby, Unpublished Decisions in the Federal Courts of Appeals: Making the Decision to Publish, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 325, 332-37 (2001); Pratt, supra note 4, at 484-86.
43. See Stephen L. Wasby, Unpublished Decisions in the Federal Courts of Appeals: Making the Decision to Publish, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 325, 332-37 (2001); Pratt, supra note 4, at 484-86.
44. Wasby. supra note 26, at 332.
45. Ibid. Id.
46. Id. at 333.
47. Pratt, supra note 4, at 486 ("On occasion a decision to dispose of a case by unpublished opinion is later changed, and the substance of the summary order is then repeated in a published opinion.").
48. See William L. Reynolds & William M. Richman, An Evaluation of Limited Publication in the United States Courts of Appeals: The Price of Reform, 48 U. CHI. L. REV. 573, 592 tbl. 5 (1981).
49. Danny J. Boggs & Brian P. Brooks, Unpublished Opinions and the Nature of Precedent, 4 GREEN BAG 2D 17, 23-24 (2000).
50. 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), vacated as moot on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
51. Id. at 899.
52. Anastasoff, 223 F.3d at 899-900 (citations omitted).
53. See id. at 899-901.
54. Anastasoff v. United States, 235 F.3d 1054, 1055 (8th Cir. 2000).
55. Musto v. Halter, 135 F. Supp. 2d 220, 238 n.8 (D. Mass. 2001); see also MacNeill Engineering Co., Inc. v. Trisport, Ltd., 126 F. Supp. 2d 51, 58 n.3 (D. Mass. 2001); Mass. Housing Finance Agency, 255 B.R. 336, 343 n.3 (D. Mass. 2000); Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 69, 138 n.40 (D. Mass. 2001); Gonzalez v. United States, 135 F. Supp. 2d 112, 122 n.10 (D. Mass. 2001); Suboh v. City of Revere, 141 F. Supp. 2d 124, 143 n.18 (D. Mass. 2001); Berthoff v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 2d 50, 53 n.4 (D. Mass. 2001); Bechtold v. Massanari, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1346 n.6 (D. Mass. 2001); McGuiness v. Pepe, 150 F. Supp. 2d 227, 235 n.16 (D. Mass. 2001); Calvache v. Benov, 183 F. Supp. 2d 124, 128 n.5 (D. Mass. 2001); Caron v. United States, 183 F. Supp. 2d 149, 156 n.7 (D. Mass. 2001); Owens v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 2d 122, 130 n.3 (D. Mass. 2002); Restucci v. Spencer, 249 F. Supp. 2d 33, 45 n.8 (D. Mass. 2003); Perkins v. Town of Huntington, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1161 n.17 (D. Mass. 2003); Arevalo v. Ashcroft, 260 F. Supp. 2d 347, 350 n.4 (D. Mass. 2003).
56. See Scher Enterprises, Inc. v. Bronco Wine Co., 178 F. Supp. 2d 780, 788 n.5 (E.D. Mich. 2001); United States v. Carrillo, 123 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1247 n.4 (D. Colo. 2000); Conant v. City of Hibbing, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1135 n.2 (D. Minn. 2000).
57. 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001).
58. Id. at 1167 n.20.
59. Id. at 1165 (footnote omitted).
60. Id. at 1175.
61. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., 277 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
62. See sources cited supra note 3.
63. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. I.
64. See Maria Brooke Tusk, Note, No-Citation Rules as a Prior Restraint on Attorney Speech, 103 COLUM. L. REV. 1202, 1221-35 (2003).
65. Id. at 1227-30; see also Katsh & Chachkes, supra note 3, at 300-07 (contending that state's asserted interests in no-citation rules are "weak at best"); Greenwald & Schwarz, supra note 11, at 1161-65.
66. Id. at 1227-30; see also Katsh & Chachkes, supra note 3, at 300-07 (contending that state's asserted interests in no-citation rules are "weak at best"); Greenwald & Schwarz, supra note 11, at 1161-65.
67. Id. at 1227-30; see also Katsh & Chachkes, supra note 3, at 300-07 (contending that state's asserted interests in no-citation rules are "weak at best"); Greenwald & Schwarz, supra note 11, at 1161-65.
68. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the . . . right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances. . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. I.
69. Greenwald & Schwarz, supra note 11, at 1165.
70. Id. at 1166.
71. See Wade, supra note 3.
72. "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
73. 512 U.S. 415, 430 (1994).
74. See Wade, supra note 3, at 717-30.
75. 434 U.S. 257 (1988).
76. See Brief of Petitioner at 50-56, Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (No. 76-5325), available at 1977 WL 189276.
77. See Brief of Amicus Curiae Chicago Council of Lawyers at 30-58, Browder (No. 76-5325), available at 1977 WL 189280.
78. Browder, 434 U.S. at 258 n.1.
79. 509 U.S. 418, 425 n.3 (1993).
80. 407 U.S. 191 (1972).
81. Id. at 194 n.4.
82. 493 U.S. 1, 3 (1989).
83. 474 U.S. 936, 938 (1985) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted).
84. Comm'r v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987).
85. 529 U.S. 694, 698-99 & nn. 2-3.
86. Id. at 699 n.3 (citing United States v. Sandoval, 69 F.3d 531 (1st Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision)).
87. See E. Ass'n Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 61 (2000); Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 436 (1997); Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997); Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 106 (1995); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 20 (1993); Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 452-54 (1993).
88. See Langston v. United States, 506 U.S. 930, 931 (1992) (mem.) (White, J., dissenting) (citing United States v. Handa, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21752 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished decision)); Costa v. United States, 506 U.S. 929, 929 (1992) (mem.) (White, J., dissenting) (citing United States v. Faulkenberry, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14580 (9th Cir. 1992) (unpublished decision)); Frierson v. United States, 1991 U.S.App. LEXIS 10310 (6th Cir. 1991) (unpublished decision)).
89. Michael Hannon, A Closer Look at Unpublished Opinions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 3 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 199, 241-50 app. (2001).
90. See generally Joseph R. Grodin, The Depublication Practice of the California Supreme Court, 72 CAL. L. REV. 514 (1984).
91. Gerald F. Uelmen, Publication and Depublication of California Court of Appeal Opinions: Is the Eraser Mightier than the Pencil? 26 LOYOLA L.A. L. REV. 1007, 1007 (1993) (reporting data from annual reports of California Judicial Council).
92. Id. at 1007-08 (citing 2 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CAL., ANNUAL REPORT 13 (1992)).
93. See Michael A. Berch, Analysis of Arizona's Depublication Rule and Practice, 32 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 175 (2000).
94. See id. at 184.
95. See id. at 185.
96. Grodin, supra note 71, at 516.
97. Id. at 518.
98. Id. at 518-20.
99. A search on Aug. 13, 2003, using the query "not officially published" in Westlaw's California Cases database retrieved 1949 cases. A sampling of these decisions indicated that virtually all of them were depublished court of appeal decisions.
100. See, e.g., Estate of Robertson, 126 Cal. Rptr. 238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (ordered not published); In re Dalton, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (ordered not published); People v. Hearn, 116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (ordered not published); People v. Vu, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (ordered not published); In re Marriage of Monge, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 524 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (ordered not published); People v. McClellan, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (ordered not published); People v. Weise, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (ordered not published); People v. Allen, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 132 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (ordered not published).
101. Berch, supra note 74, at 177.
102. Grodin, supra note 71, at 519.
103. Berch, supra note 74, at 181.
104. Uelmen, supra note 72, at 1020.
105. I b i d.
106. Stephen R. Barnett, Depublication Deflating: The California Supreme Court's Wonderful Law-Making Machine Begins to Self-Destruct, 45 HASTINGS L.J. 519, 567 (1994).
107. Uelmen, supra note 72, at 1011 (citations omitted).
108. See infra ¶¶ 72-79.
109. D.C. Cir. R. 28(c)(1)(B). Note that this provision only applies to opinions entered on or after Jan. 1, 2002. Unpublished opinions entered before that date "are not to be cited as precedent." D.C. Cir. R. 28(c)(1)(A).
110. See, e.g., 1ST CIR. R. 36(F); 2D CIR. R. 0.23; 7TH CIR. R. 53(b)(2)(iv).
111. See, e.g., 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4; 11TH CIR. R. 36-2.
112. FED. CIR. R. 47.6(b).
113. See 6TH CIR. R. 28(g); 10TH CIR. R. 36.3(B). The Eighth Circuit provides that "parties generally should not cite to" unpublished opinions. 8TH CIR. R. 28A(i).
114. See 4th Cir. R. 36(c) (unreported decision may be cited "if counsel believes . . . that [it] has precedential value in relation to a material issue in the case and there is no published opinion that would serve as well"); 6TH CIR. R. 23(g); 8TH CIR. R. 28A(i).
115. 10TH CIR. R. 36.3(B)(1).
116. 10TH CIR. R. 36.3(B)(2).
117. 10TH CIR. R. 36.3(A).
118. 9TH CIR. R. 36-3(b)(iii).
119. 9TH CIR. R. 36-3(b)(ii).
120. Melissa M. Serfass & Jessie L. Cranford, Federal and State Court Rules Governing Publication and Citation of Opinions, 3 J. App. PRAC. & PROCESS 251 (2001).
121. Jason B. Binimow, Annotation, Precedential Effect of Unpublished Opinions, 105 A.L.R. 5th 499 (2003).
122. 1ST CIR. R. 36(b)(2)(D).
123. 7TH CIR. R. 53(d)(3).
124. 4TH CIR. R. 36(b).
125. "Unreported opinions give counsel, the parties and the lower court or agency a statement of reasons for the decision." Id. This suggests that the anticipated audience for such opinions is, in most cases, limited to those individuals.
126. See supra ¶¶ 22-24.
127. 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.1(d).
128. 2D CIR. R. 0.23.
129. 1ST CIR. R. 36(b)(2)(F).
130. 7TH CIR. R. 53(b)(2)(iv)(a).
131. See, e.g., 10TH CIR. R. 36.3(A)-(B).
132. See, e.g., 8TH CIR. R. 28A(i).
133. 43 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D. Mass. 1999).
134. Id. at 103 n.1.
135. Robel, supra, note 17, at 950.
136. I b i d.
137. Id. at 947.
138. Id. at 959.
139. 242 F.3d 315, 322, reh'g en banc denied, 256 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
140. Id. at 318-19 n.1 (rejecting Anderson v. DART, 180 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (unpublished decision)).
141. Williams, 256 F.3d at 261 (Smith, J., dissenting).
142. MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT R. 3.3(a)(3) (2000).
143. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Prof'1 Responsibility, Formal Op. 94-386R (1995).
144. See Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[W]e are aware that Anastasoff may have cast doubt on our rule's constitutional validity. Our rules are obviously not meant to punish attorneys who, in good faith, seek to test a rule's constitutionality.").
145. See, e.g., Matter of Bagdade, 334 F.3d 568, 570 (7th Cir. 2003).
146. See Martin, supra note 4, at 191-92.
147. William T. Hangley, Opinions Hidden, Citations Forbidden: Report and Recommendations of the American College of Trial Lawyers on the Publication and Citation of Nonbinding Federal Circuit Court Opinions, 208 F.R.D. 645, 680 (2002).
148. Donald R. Songer, Criteria for Publication of Opinions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals: Formal Rules versus Empirical Reality, 73 JUDICATURE 307, 311 (1990).
149. Hannon, supra note 70, at 221-22.
150. Robert A. Mead, "Unpublished" Opinions as the Bulk of the Iceberg: Publication Patterns in the Eighth and Tenth Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals, 93 LAW LIBR. J. 589, 605, 2001 LAW LIBR. J. 28, ¶ 32.
151. Robert A. Mead, "Unpublished" Opinions as the Bulk of the Iceberg: Publication Patterns in the Eighth and Tenth Circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals, 93 LAW LIBR. J. 589, 605, 2001 LAW LIBR. J. 28, ¶ 32.
152. Id. at 606, ¶ 32 tbl. 3.
153. Songer, supra note 129, at 312.
154. William Glaberson, Caseload Forcing Two-Level System for U.S. Appeals, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 14, 1999, § 1, at 1.
155. I b i d .
156. Robel, supra note 17, at 952.
157. Songer, supra note 129, at 312.
158. Id. at 312-13.
159. Reynolds & Richman, supra note 31, at 621.
160. Id. at 603.
161. Nathan Dodell, On Wanting to Know Why, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 465, 465 (1992).
162. Reynolds & Richman, supra note 31, at 621.
163. Robel, supra note 17, at 958.
164. Elizabeth M. Horton, Comment, Selective Publication and the Authority of Precedent in the United States Courts of Appeals, 42 UCLAL. REV. 1691, 1705-06 (1995) (citations omitted).
165. Id. at 1705.
166. Robel, supra note 17, at 958.
167. 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cr. 2000), vacated as moot on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
168. See, e.g., Miller, supra note 3.
169. See supra ¶ 31.
170. D.C. Cir. R. 28(c)(1)(B) ("All unpublished orders or judgments of this court . . . entered on or after January 1, 2002, may be cited as precedent.)
171. D.C. Cir. R. 28(c)(1)(B) ("All unpublished orders or judgments of this court . . . entered on or after January 1, 2002, may be cited as precedent.). See Barnett, supra note 3, at 3 n.11 (citing Telephone Interviews with D.C. Cir. judges (Jan. 11, 2002, Feb. 28, 2002)) ("Asked why they made the rule change, two D.C. Circuit judges called the move 'long overdue' and mentioned variously the Federal Appendix, the Anastasoff opinion, the broad availability of unpublished opinions through online sources and elsewhere, and that 'we don't like secret law.'").
172. The text of the advisory committee's proposed new rule is as follows: Citation Permitted. No prohibition or restriction may be imposed upon the citation of judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been designated as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent" or the like, unless that prohibition or restriction is generally imposed upon the citation of all judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions. FED. R. APP. P. 32.1(a) (proposed). Proposed Rule on Unpublished Opinions, LEGAL TIMES, Apr. 12, 2004, at 11.
173. The text of the advisory committee's proposed new rule is as follows: Citation Permitted. No prohibition or restriction may be imposed upon the citation of judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been designated as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent" or the like, unless that prohibition or restriction is generally imposed upon the citation of all judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions. FED. R. APP. P. 32.1(a) (proposed). Proposed Rule on Unpublished Opinions, LEGAL TIMES, Apr. 12, 2004, at 11.
174. ADMIN. OFF. OF THE U.S. COURTS, ADVISORY RULES COMMITTEES ACTIONS: SPRING 2004 MEETINGS, at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/index.html#advspring04 (last visited May 13, 2004).
175. See Stephen R. Barnett, No Citation Rules under Seige: A Battlefield Report, 5 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 473 (2003); Tony Mauro, Appeals Judges Openly Debate Allowing Citations of All Unpublished Opinions, N.Y. L.J., Apr. 12, 2004, at 1; Roy H. Wepner, Are Federal Appellate Practitioners Free at Last? Proposed Rule Change Lifts Ban on Citation of Unpublished Decisions That is Still in Effect in Certain Federal Appeals Courts, 175 N.J. L.J. 272 (Jan. 26, 2004).
176. See Stephen R. Barnett, No Citation Rules under Seige: A Battlefield Report, 5 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 473 (2003); Tony Mauro, Appeals Judges Openly Debate Allowing Citations of All Unpublished Opinions, N.Y. L.J., Apr. 12, 2004, at 1; Roy H. Wepner, Are Federal Appellate Practitioners Free at Last? Proposed Rule Change Lifts Ban on Citation of Unpublished Decisions That is Still in Effect in Certain Federal Appeals Courts, 175 N.J. L.J. 272 (Jan. 26, 2004).
177. See Stephen R. Barnett, No Citation Rules under Seige: A Battlefield Report, 5 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 473 (2003); Tony Mauro, Appeals Judges Openly Debate Allowing Citations of All Unpublished Opinions, N.Y. L.J., Apr. 12, 2004, at 1; Roy H. Wepner, Are Federal Appellate Practitioners Free at Last? Proposed Rule Change Lifts Ban on Citation of Unpublished Decisions That is Still in Effect in Certain Federal Appeals Courts, 175 N.J. L.J. 272 (Jan. 26, 2004).
178. Much has been written on unpublished judicial opinions. The items included in this bibliography are some of the more significant sources, including recent post-Anastasoff articles, as well as a number of earlier pieces that articulated the discourse on this subject.
179. Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), vacated as moot on other grounds, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
180. Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1180 (9th Cir. 2001).