"Per Curiam" means "by the court," and per curiam decisions are not attributable to any particular judge. Rather, it seems, all judges are in agreement as to the holdings on the contained issues.
The Wisconsin Law Journal has quoted a Wisconsin Court of Appeals judge, stating: "[Judge Patience D. Roggensack] noted that per curiam and summary decisions were not included because of their brevity and limited reasoning."
Rupp's Insurance & Risk Management Glossary defines Per Curiam as "A decision rendered 'by the court' (usually an appellate court), rather than by a named judge. . .Ordinarily, the opinion is brief, and the case raises no issues the judges consider to be of legal or social importance."
As a result of these prevailing attitudes, per curiam decisions get little respect in the legal world. Per curiam decisions are all but forgotton by many legal information entities.
The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute Bulletin does not normally report on per curiam decisions, and the Institute has said: "Per curiam" decisions. . .tend to be short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial. For examples, see, e.g.,Wood v. Bartholomew, No. 94-1419 (Oct. 10, 1995) and Kimberlin v. Quinlin, No. 93-2068 (June 12, 1995)."
Unlike Unpublished opinions, however, per curiam decisions CAN be cited in court filings, as they are precedential and contain "good law."
So, are per curiam decisions simply the bastard sons of the Court? Or do they function as a valuable time-saving function for the judicial system?
Posted by Andy at December 6, 2003 05:00 AM | TrackBackSome states permit referece to unpublished opinions. In January of 2003, Texas changed its Rules of Appellate Procedure to allow the citation of unpublished opinions. Indeed, Rule 47.7 now provides:
47.7 Citation of Unpublished Opinions. Opinions not designated for publication by the court of appeals under these or prior rules have no precedential value but may be cited with the notation, "(not designated for publication)."
Thus, they may be cited, but they are not binding precedent.
As for per curiam decisions, Findlaw only recently began providing links to them in its newsletter updates, but it does not summarize them.
Posted by: Dedman on December 12, 2003 03:49 AMTrue. There has been some activity around citing to Unpublished opinions. To confuse matters even further, California Appellate Courts frequently issue cases under the category of "Partial Publication." Within a single case, some information is precedential while other parts are not.
See David's November 28th post in the Citations section of the Blogbook for more.
Posted by: Andy on December 12, 2003 12:01 PM