Precedential value of opinions

Under Rule 809.23, Stats., selected "judge-authored" opinions of the Court of Appeals are published in the official reports: Callaghan's Wisconsin Reports and West's North Western Reporter. Published opinions have precedential value and may be cited as controlling law in Wisconsin. Unpublished opinions, on the other hand, are not precedential and may not be cited as authority in any Wisconsin court.

Rule 809.23 sets forth criteria for publication of a Court of Appeals opinions-including whether it enunciates a new rule or modifies, criticizes or clarifies an existing rule of law, whether it resolves a conflict in prior decisions, whether it contributes to the legal literature and whether it decides a case of substantial and continuing public interest. Under §§ 752.31 (2) and (3), Stats., single-judge, per curiam and "summary" opinions are generally not eligible for publication. Thus the initial publication decision is made by the deciding panel, which determines, based in large part on the publication criteria, the format an opinion will take-judge-authored, per curiam or summary. In addition, all judge-authored opinions contain a written recommendation by the deciding panel whether to publish or not.

The final publication decision is made by a committee, which meets monthly, and is comprised of one judge from each of the four Court of Appeals districts and chaired by the chief judge. Committee members read and discuss each eligible opinion and, based on the criteria stated in the rule, vote whether or not to publish. Of the 499 full, three-judge opinions (the only kind eligible for publication) considered by the Court in 1998, 279 were ordered published. That represents 56 percent of eligible opinions and 19 percent of all written opinions (three-judge, per curiam, and single-judge opinions).

Back to Court of Appeals opinions and rules