You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Jackson and Coker Locum Tenens, Inc. v. Paul Slawek, M.D., Rittenhouse Diagnostic Associates, Inc

Citation: 61 F.3d 895Docket: 94-1601

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; June 8, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In Jackson and Coker Locum Tenens, Inc. v. Paul Slawek, M.D. and Rittenhouse Diagnostic Associates, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed cases numbered 94-1601 and 94-1784, originating from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (case number 93-cv-06459). The court vacated the lower court's decision. The ruling emphasizes that the Third Circuit has specific guidelines for publishing opinions, reserving publication for those deemed to have precedential or institutional value. Opinions that are only relevant to the trial court or the involved parties are typically not published. The Federal Reporter compiles case outcomes based on judgments, unpublished per curiam opinions, and unpublished signed opinions as transmitted by the court.

Legal Issues Addressed

Compilation of Case Outcomes in Federal Reporter

Application: The Federal Reporter includes various types of case outcomes, such as judgments and both unpublished per curiam and signed opinions, as provided by the court.

Reasoning: The Federal Reporter compiles case outcomes based on judgments, unpublished per curiam opinions, and unpublished signed opinions as transmitted by the court.

Criteria for Unpublished Opinions

Application: Opinions that are pertinent only to the trial court or the immediate parties involved are typically not selected for publication.

Reasoning: Opinions that are only relevant to the trial court or the involved parties are typically not published.

Publication of Court Opinions

Application: The Third Circuit has established criteria for determining when an opinion should be published, focusing on its precedential or institutional value.

Reasoning: The ruling emphasizes that the Third Circuit has specific guidelines for publishing opinions, reserving publication for those deemed to have precedential or institutional value.