The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s rule against allowing attorneys to cite its nonprecedential opinions caused a stir recently in a high-profile products liability case that was argued before the court in August. But according to several appellate attorneys, the ban has been a long-standing nuisance, and, while some feel the rule is necessary given the court’s workload, many others feel it should be done away with entirely.
“It’s the most bizarre system of justice imaginable, and it causes many people to lose faith, or become disgruntled with the system,” appellate attorney Howard Bashman said, adding that the prohibition against citing nonprecedential decisions can lead parties to believe that their cases were hastily decided. “I think the Superior Court decides all cases in a principled manner, and that’s why all decisions should be citable.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
