Which statement correctly describes the precedential value of published and unpublished opinions?

Which statement correctly describes the precedential value of published and unpublished opinions?

• A. Unpublished opinions are binding on all courts
• B. Published opinions have no impact on future cases
• C. Published opinions can serve as precedent; unpublished opinions are binding only to the parties involved
• D. All judicial opinions carry equal weight

Answer: (C)

Precedent is about binding guidance for future cases. When a court issues a published opinion, it’s intended to be cited as authority for how similar issues should be decided, and other courts generally must follow it. Unpublished opinions, on the other hand, are not treated as binding authority for future cases. They are usually not cited as precedent and are only fully binding on the parties within that case, though they may informally influence future decisions as persuasive material. Some jurisdictions allow limited citation of unpublished opinions, but they do not carry the same binding weight as published opinions. So, published opinions can serve as precedent, while unpublished opinions are binding only to the parties involved in that case.

Precedent is about binding guidance for future cases. When a court issues a published opinion, it’s intended to be cited as authority for how similar issues should be decided, and other courts generally must follow it. Unpublished opinions, on the other hand, are not treated as binding authority for future cases. They are usually not cited as precedent and are only fully binding on the parties within that case, though they may informally influence future decisions as persuasive material. Some jurisdictions allow limited citation of unpublished opinions, but they do not carry the same binding weight as published opinions. So, published opinions can serve as precedent, while unpublished opinions are binding only to the parties involved in that case.