How do authorities treat unpublished opinions, and what should you do when relying on them?

• A. They may have limited or no precedential weight; check jurisdiction rules; cite carefully if allowed.
• B. They carry full precedential weight and should be cited freely.
• C. They are always controlling.
• D. They cannot be cited at all.

Answer: (A)

Unpublished opinions usually don’t serve as binding authority. They’re typically treated as persuasive rather than controlling precedent, and many courts limit or restrict their use because they weren’t designated for publication to guide other cases.

When you rely on an unpublished opinion, first check your jurisdiction’s rules about citing them. Some places prohibit citing unpublished decisions, others allow it only as persuasive authority or only if no published authority addresses the issue. If the rules permit it, cite the decision clearly as unpublished and rely on it only to illustrate persuasive reasoning, not as binding precedent. Whenever possible, corroborate with published opinions or statutes that address the same point.

Also be mindful that unpublished opinions can be updated, designated for publication later, or withdrawn, so verify the current status before relying on them.