Appellate Process

When it comes to the perils of non-published precedented federal appellate process, is there a danger in the state-created danger doctrine? The rationale for non—precedential opinions has a huge percentage for the norm in the federal appellate process. There are two main functions: dispute settling and lawmaking. When laws make precedent, it announces the law, applies settled law to facts, and includes important discussions or criticism of any settled rules. In a dispute, settled opinions apply only to uncontroversial rules of law to ordinary cases—they usually have no place within the public. Preparing an opinion for publication costs appellate judges time. It devotes less time for eliminating any potential ambiguity to explain any arguments. It can also omit any details explaining the facts because a target audience is assumed to already know the facts. To efficiently dispose appellate dockets is not the sole justification for non-precedential decisions (Sarah, 2006). What are the risks for generating non-precedential opinions? There are doctrinal anomalies that apply unsettled law to new facts. To ensure a judicial decision, it is best to make it uniform, predictable, rule-based, and fair to any similar litigants. Is there an uncertainty about how appellate panels and district courts will treat non-precedential opinions? The risks of producing opinions is inconsistent when precedent is realized and a proliferation of opinions does not bind appellate panels and district court for any risks that are inconsistent with the treatment of non-precedential opinions by the court that is responsible for applying the law. What about any uncertainty for how litigants will treat non-precedential opinions? Appellate opinions do not bind panels or district courts that could risk any inconsistent treatment by litigants who are bound by the law (Sarah, 2006). What is the prevalence of non-published, non-precedential Third Circuit State-Created Danger decisions? The due process liability is frequently invoked in a constitutional theory that is litigated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The theory to the rule was set forth by the Supreme Court in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, stating that a state is not constitutionally obligated to protect its citizens from violent acts from private citizens. However, under state-created danger decisions exceptions, state actors may be liable for any private violence when state actors create any risk of privately inflicted harm (Sarah, 2006). Is there a danger between published precedent and “unpublished” non-precedent Third Circuit State-Created Danger opinions? There are four: 1) Inconsistent mental culpability standards; 2) Inconsistent analysis of derivative claims by family members; 3) Inconsistent state action requirements; and 4) Inconsistent municipality liability standards (Sarah, 2006). In Example 1, there is a State of Mind requirement—or a willful disregard or deliberate indifference. For this to happen, there has to be harm that is foreseeable and direct, state actor acted in disregard for the safety of plaintiff, there existed some relationship between state and plaintiff, and state actors used authority to create opportunity that otherwise existed for the third to occur (Sarah, 2006). In Example 2, a State-Created Danger claims by Family Members was brought by the case Solum v. Yerusalim that precluded State-Created Danger claims by a Primary Victim’s Family. The unpredictable application of the non-precedential decision was decided by the Irreconcilable District Court Analysis of Claims by Family Members of Two Murder Victims. In Example 3, the Necessity for Government Immediate Action gave four claims: State-Created Danger Precedent Requires Affirmative State Conduct, Subsequent state-created danger precedent does not require affirmative state conduct, Non-precedential reconciliation of apparent conflict, and practical consequences of doctrinal inconsistency for District Court and litigants (Sarah, 2006). In Example 4, the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Municipal Liability is the Third District Precedent Required Examinations even in the Absence of wrong doing by individual actors, non- precedential municipal liability opinions are rejected by claims against individuals that are to be dispositive of the municipal liability claims, the practical consequences of doctrinal inconsistency for district court and its litigants, and the doctrine that is independent of the Municipal Liability for State-Created Danger is insufficiently settled for any non-precedential action (Sarah, 2006). In conclusion, should there be a State-Created Danger requirement that allows state actors to protect its private citizens? Reference. Sarah, E. R. (2006). The perils of unpublished non-precedential federal appellate opinions: A case study of the substantive due process state-created danger doctrine in one circuit. Washington Law Review, 81(2), 217-278. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213101047?accountid=35996