Legal Definitions - depublished opinion

A depublished opinion refers to a written decision issued by an appellate court that was initially designated for official publication but was later ordered by a higher court (typically the state's supreme court) to be removed from official legal reporters. This means the opinion can no longer be cited as legal precedent in future cases, effectively nullifying its authority to guide other courts. While the specific outcome for the parties involved in that particular case usually remains unchanged, the legal reasoning presented in the depublished opinion loses its power to influence or bind other courts.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Preventing Conflicting Legal Interpretations

  A state Court of Appeal issues a published opinion in a case involving a new type of digital contract, establishing a novel legal test for its validity. Lawyers across the state begin to cite this opinion in their arguments. However, the state Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, believes that the Court of Appeal's test contradicts existing, long-standing principles of contract law or could lead to undesirable outcomes. Rather than taking on the case for a full review itself, the Supreme Court issues an order to depublish the Court of Appeal's opinion.

  This illustrates a depublished opinion because the higher court intervened to prevent the lower court's specific legal reasoning from becoming binding precedent. Even though the original parties' digital contract dispute is resolved, the particular legal test offered by the Court of Appeal cannot be used by lawyers or judges in future contract cases as authoritative law.

• Example 2: Addressing Policy Concerns or Factual Errors

  A Court of Appeal publishes an opinion in a high-profile case concerning municipal zoning regulations, setting a new standard for how local governments must evaluate development proposals near wetlands. This standard, while well-intentioned, might inadvertently create significant practical difficulties for urban planning or contain factual inaccuracies regarding environmental science that were not fully explored. Concerned about the broad implications and potential for misinterpretation across the state, the state Supreme Court orders the opinion to be depublished.

  Here, the opinion is depublished to prevent its reasoning from becoming binding precedent. The Supreme Court might disagree with the policy implications of the new standard or find the reasoning flawed, and depublication ensures that this particular interpretation of zoning law does not become part of the official body of law that other courts must follow.

• Example 3: Grant of Review Followed by Settlement

  A Court of Appeal publishes an opinion regarding a complex intellectual property dispute, offering a unique interpretation of copyright infringement. The state Supreme Court grants review of the case, signaling its intent to hear arguments and potentially issue its own definitive ruling. However, before the Supreme Court can hear the case, the parties involved reach a private settlement and agree to dismiss the appeal. As a result, the Supreme Court dismisses its grant of review and simultaneously orders the Court of Appeal's original opinion to be depublished.

  This demonstrates a depublished opinion because the Supreme Court, having initially shown interest in the case and potentially intending to supersede or correct the lower court's reasoning, ultimately did not issue its own binding precedent. By depublishing the lower court's opinion, it ensures that the lower court's specific interpretation of copyright infringement does not stand as authoritative law, even though the original parties' dispute is resolved.