Rule 10.30 - NONPRECEDENTIAL AND PRECEDENTIAL DECISIONS(1) Nonprecedential Decisions(a) The judges participating in the decision of an appeal submitted to a department may issue a nonprecedential decision as follows:(i) By issuing an affirmance without opinion;(ii) By issuing a nonprecedential memorandum opinion, designated by a notation on the title page of the opinion substantially to the effect of the following: "This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1)."(b) A nonprecedential memorandum opinion may be authored or per curiam.(c) Nonprecedential memorandum opinions are not precedent and are not binding authority except as relevant under the law of the case doctrine or the rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion.(d) Nonprecedential memorandum opinions may be cited if no precedent addresses the issue before the court, in briefing to argue that a precedential decision is warranted because of conflicting nonprecedential memorandum opinions, or in a petition for reconsideration under ORAP 6.25 claiming that a decision issued as a nonprecedential memorandum opinion should be designated as precedential under the factors listed in subsection (2)(b) of this rule. When citing a nonprecedential memorandum opinion, the citing party shall:(i) Explain the reason for citing the nonprecedential memorandum opinion and how it is relevant to the issues presented; and (ii) Include a parenthetical as part of the case citation indicating that the case is a "nonprecedential memorandum opinion."(e) The court may, upon a petition for reconsideration under ORAP 6.25 or on the court's own motion, remove the nonprecedential designation from an opinion.(2) Precedential Decisions (a) All written opinions issued by the Court of Appeals sitting en banc are precedential.(b) Otherwise, the following factors are relevant in determining whether a written opinion will be precedential: (i) Whether the opinion establishes a new principle or rule of law or clarifies existing case law;(ii) Whether the opinion decides a novel issue involving a constitutional provision, statute, administrative rule, rule of court, or other provision of law;(iii) Whether the opinion resolves a significant or recurring legal issue for which there is no clear precedent;(iv) Whether the opinion criticizes existing law;(v) Whether the opinion is accompanied by a separate concurring or dissenting expression, and the author of such separate expression requests that the disposition of the court be precedential; or(vi) Whether the opinion resolves a conflict among existing nonprecedential memorandum opinions brought to the court's attention.