X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
You are researching a critical issue for an appellate brief and you find a case that is absolutely parallel to yours and from the same court. “Eureka!” you cry. Then you see the local rule that forbids use of unpublished opinions as precedent. Your perfect decision, rendered by three wise federal appellate judges (wise because they agree with you), might just as well not exist. Judge Richard S. Arnold of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took on this anomaly directly in his August 2000 decision in Anastasoff v. U.S., 223 F.3d 898. There, a taxpayer sought a refund and made an argument squarely rejected in an unpublished 1992 opinion. In an opinion that had almost nothing to say about tax law but a great deal about judicial power and the history of precedent in the law, Judge Arnold and his colleagues told Anastasoff that she — and the panel — were bound by the earlier decision. The local rule unconstitutionally expanded the scope of the Article III judicial power. Anastasoff’s case seemed destined for the Supreme Court, but it met its demise not with a bang but a whimper. The Internal Revenue Service changed its policy and paid Anastasoff her refund. The 8th Circuit vacated the panel decision as moot. Arnold’s constitutional analysis, which will surely be resurrected in some other case, was right. But unpublished-so-nonprecedential rules invite abuse and inconsistency. IT’S HUMAN NATURE That’s less an indictment of the judiciary than a recognition of human nature. Strict application of the law sometimes brings about unsettling results. That’s why a jury considering the case of a mother who has killed her child’s molester might absorb the damning evidence and still acquit. Are judges any less tempted? I have no doubt that most of them swallow hard and apply the law. But what if there were a mechanism to decide that case in what seems the more just — if not justifiable — way and to designate it as sui generis so that it does not foul the jurisprudential stream? The harm would be considerable. The law should be predictable. To the individual litigant, it matters not at all if the opinion in his case becomes precedent. (I cannot imagine Palsgraf in her later years sitting her grandchildren on her lap and telling them, proudly, that, even though she lost, Chief Judge Cardozo used her train station accident to establish the limits of a tortfeasor’s duty.) To litigants, their case is the most important one pending and they want a predicable result. UNEVEN RESULTS In addition, the unpublished-so-nonprecedential rules invite a sometimes remarkably uneven application of the law. For example, in U.S. v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000), the 9th Circuit announced that it was publishing its opinion on a technical sentencing issue because the circuit had never addressed the issue in a published — and therefore precedential — opinion. Instead, over three years, different panels of the court had issued 20 unpublished opinions that took three different approaches to the same issue. One justification for the rules is that many cases do not involve unique facts or explore the frontiers of jurisprudence. Accordingly, they do not merit space in overcrowded law books. Because they would not be widely available, they should not be considered precedent. At one time, that was a good argument, but that time is long past. It ignores the many new means of disseminating judicial opinions. Consider the Internet. Every federal appeals court now has a Web site that posts (and usually archives) published opinions. Most lawyers have access to the Internet (or can gain that access at a nominal cost). Moreover, the addition of more opinions to Lexis and Westlaw would not likely increase their costs in any significant way. And, of course, courts can require that counsel attach copies of unpublished opinions to briefs that cite them. The point is that nowadays a decision that an opinion should not be published in a book hardly means that the opinion will be hidden away in a dusty filing drawer in the clerk’s office. Inaccessibility is no longer a viable excuse for the unpublished-so-nonprecedential rules. With their rationale stripped away, they remain an invitation to abuse and an impediment to legal uniformity.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.