Premium
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS AT THE FEDERAL APPELLATE LEVEL: JUDICIAL WINDFALL OR DEMOCRATIC PITFALL?
Author(s) -
Morris Mary G.,
Cline Paul C.,
Eksterowicz Anthony
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
southeastern political review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1747-1346
pISSN - 0730-2177
DOI - 10.1111/j.1747-1346.1994.tb00320.x
Subject(s) - political science , democracy , accountability , law , citation , equity (law) , subjectivity , judicial review , judicial activism , politics , philosophy , epistemology
The subject of limited publication of judicial opinions has generated controversy among students and practitioners of the law. Originally this tool was perceived as a viable method for providing some relief to judges from the burden of increasing caseloads. Because of the lack of uniformity and subjectivity of the publication, distribution and citation rules in the federal appellate circuits, the limited publication scheme can have a detrimental effect on the perception of equity in the law, judicial accountability and responsibility and overall judicial fairness. The authors explore these problems by examining recent data on the federal courts of appeals and offer proposed modifications to the use of this popular judicial tool.