Narrative Opinion Summary
The document is a legal ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, related to the case "In re Anthony Maglica," with the case number 93-1317. The court issued a judgment on December 13, 1993, affirming a prior decision without a detailed opinion, as indicated by the "per curiam" judgment. The ruling emphasizes that the opinion is designated as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases, although it does allow for the assertion of certain legal doctrines such as claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, or the law of the case based on this decision. The judges involved in the ruling were MAYER, PLAGER, and RADER.
Legal Issues Addressed
Nonprecedential Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases.
Reasoning: The ruling emphasizes that the opinion is designated as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases.
Per Curiam Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court issued a judgment affirming a prior decision without a detailed opinion through a 'per curiam' judgment.
Reasoning: The court issued a judgment on December 13, 1993, affirming a prior decision without a detailed opinion, as indicated by the 'per curiam' judgment.
Permissible Use of Nonprecedential Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Nonprecedential opinions can still allow for the assertion of certain legal doctrines, such as claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
Reasoning: It does allow for the assertion of certain legal doctrines such as claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, or the law of the case based on this decision.