"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Unlike Unpublished opinions, however, per curiam decisions CAN be cited in court filings, as they are precedential and contain "good law."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?