Published and unpublished opinions

Appellate courts issue far more decisions than they publish, and the distinction affects both research and citation.

Publication criteria typically include establishing a new rule, altering or criticising an existing one, resolving an apparent conflict, applying an established rule to significantly different facts, and matters of continuing public interest.

Precedential effect. Published decisions bind later panels of the same court under the horizontal precedent rule; unpublished decisions do not.

Citation. Federal appellate rules permit citation of unpublished decisions issued after a defined date, and courts vary in the weight given. Many state courts restrict citation, and some prohibit it entirely. The local rule is determinative and is frequently misapplied.

Motions to publish may be filed by a party or by a non-party with an interest, and are granted where the criteria are met.

Depublication exists in a few systems, removing precedential effect without disturbing the result.

Practical use. An unpublished decision that is directly on point is worth citing where permitted, framed as persuasive rather than controlling, and paired with published authority. Citing one where the rules prohibit it damages credibility and occasionally draws sanctions.