1105(e). [7] See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 advisory committee’s note to 2006 adoption. [8] See Circuit Rules 36-3; Fed. R. App. P. 32.

ns.Those limits are significant.First,per curiamopinions, and opinions issued before July 1, 2023, maynotbe cited at all.Second, post-July 1, 2023, unreported opinions may be cited as persuasive “only if no reported authority adequately addresses an issue before the court.”Unreported opinions issued byotherjurisdictions “may be cited as persuasive authority if the jurisdiction in which the opinion was issued would permit it to be cited as persuasive authority or as precedent. The citation shall indicate whether the opinion is precedent in the issuing jurisdiction.”THE FEDERAL APPROACHWhile, in my view, new Maryland Rule 1-104 is not perfect and reflects some compromises, it is a substantial improvement; however, the federal approach is dissimilar from the amended Maryland Rule.Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 provides that courtsmay not restrict citationof unpublished opinions issued after January 1, 2007.That, of course, is much broader than the new Maryland Rule.However, whilecitationis permitted, Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 does not state whatimpact, if any, those opinions may have.SeeProposal to Eliminate Judicial Disappearing Ink;accord, W. Richman, “Much Ado About the Tip of an Iceberg,”1723, 1724 (2005).That may present an unresolved issue under the Maryland Rule, because, if an unreported federal decision is cited in a Maryland court, treatment under the Maryland Rule is dependent on the federal treatment, which is unspecified.PROS AND CONS OF UNREPORTED OPINIONSUnreported opinions serve a valuable role by assisting courts in addressing dispute resolution appeals that do not break new ground.They help courts manage their staggering appellate workload.However, they are of relatively recent vintage.On the federal level, they saw substantial usage beginning in the early 1970’s.W. Reynolds and W. Richman, “Limited Publication in the Fourth and Sixth Circuits,”(1979).Unpublished opinions have long been controversial.A 2016 article reported that 92 percent of the Minnesota intermediate appellate court’s o

same burden even though Angela actually filed the instant lawsuit.On October 6, 2022, the Ninth Circuit rejected Angela’s argument: “Nothing in the language of § 512 indicates that... a requirement [that Snail obtain its own preliminary injunction] exists. And even if it did, Angela is the party that moved for the preliminary injunction at issue on appeal.”Therefore, Angela would have to meet the normal burden of an applicant for a mandatory injunction “[b]ecause Angela's requested injunction would require [Snail] to ‘take [the] affirmative action’ of retracting the Valve Letter.”Finally, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Angela failed to meet that higher burden.The litigation continues in the district court.[1] Christopher Paniewski et al., Are Trade Secret Takedowns Real or a Myth?, Wilson Sonsini Client Alert (Feb. 22, 2022), https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/are-trade-secret-takedowns-real-or-a-myth.html.[2] Consistent with Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent but may be cited. Federal district courts often take note of unpublished federal circuit court opinions when there is no binding precedent on an issue.[3] Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. San Jose Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 46 F.4th 1075, 1091 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009), and Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994)) (citations omitted).[4] Mem. Supp. Ex Parte Application at 4:14–20, 6:25–7:9, Suzhou Angela Online Game Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Snail Games USA Inc., No. 2:21-CV-09552 CAS (SKX) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021), ECF No. 15; Pls.’ Notice of Ex Parte Application at 2:11–14, Suzhou Angela Online Game Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Snail Games USA Inc., No. 2:21-CV-09552 CAS (SKX) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021), ECF No. 15.[5] Suzhou Angela Online Game Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Snail Games USA Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXI

sal of sexual-orientation discrimination and retaliation complaint by former Yellowstone Park employee: the district court was correct in holding the claims preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act)Bekkem v. Wilkie (10th Cir., February 12, 2019) (affirming summary judgment for Wilkie on Bekkem’s unequal pay discrimination and nonselection retaliation claims and dismissal of her discrimination claim based on her reprimand; but reversing summary judgment for Wilkie on Bekkem’s claim of retaliation based on the reprimand: the explanation could have been seen as pretextual)Public Employees*Hedquist v. Beamer (10th Cir., February 13, 2019) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Defendants: the protected speech was not a motivating factor in the alleged adverse action taken against him)*Cases marked by an asterisk are not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1

While the court did not provide a bright line test for determining such prejudice, it did provide guidance through its recitation of the facts in this case that resulted in prejudice to the insurer.[1]This is an unpublished opinion and citation is governed by Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1. Also, see U.S. Ct. of Appeals 4th Cir. Rule 32.

018 decision holding the Buyers were nonmanagerial employees representable by the union)Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease*Deardorff v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 29, 2019) (reversing denial of disability benefits: the ALJ failed to consider Deardorff's migraines, and failed to discuss probative evidence conflicting with his opinion)*Todorova v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 31, 2019) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Todorova's impairments were not severe)*Vallejo v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., February 1, 2019) (reversing district court award of benefits (itself reversing of Commissioner's denial of benefits): the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, and thedenial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence)*The 10th Circuit has declared that these cases are not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

MiscellaneousSalt Lake City v. Kidd (Utah, January 23, 2019) (Kidd failed to preserve or to brief her equal protection or First Amendment claims in connection with her conviction for working as an escort without a license)WagesCummings v. Dean (10th Cir., January 24, 2019) (reversing denial of qualified immunity to Dean, director of Labor Relations, New Mexico Workforce Solutions, on due process failure to issue prevailing wage rates) Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease*McKenna v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., January 23, 2019) (affirming denial of disability benefits: McKenna's work was cognitive, not sedentary)*The 10th Circuit has declared that these cases are not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

affirming summary judgment in favor of the City on Medearis's claim that the City interfered with his FMLA leave)Miscellaneous*Mitchell v. Lietaer (10th Cir., December 21, 2018) (affirming dismissal of action before the EEOCfor lack of subject matter jurisdiction: Mitchell fails to allege any form of discrimination, or even to claim even that Lietaer was her employee)Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and DiseaseBenson v. Utah Labor Commission (Utah Ct. App., December 20, 2018) (affirming denial of benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act: substantial evidence supported the Commission decision; there was no abuse of discretion)*Greene v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC (10th Cir., December 17, 2018) (affirming dismissal of Greene's ADA claim, barred by issue preclusion)*The 10th Circuit has declared that these cases are not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination*Jones v. Office of Administrative Hearings (10th Cir., December 11, 2018) (affirming dismissal of Jones's equal protection and due process claims after she was fired after failing a drug test)Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease*Vigil v. Commissioner, SSA (10th Cir., December 11, 2018) (affirming denial of disability benefits: Vigil failed to satisfy the criteria for any listed impairment)*Turner Brothers v. Conley (10th Cir., December 11, 2018) (affirming award of black lung benefits to Conley, who was exposed to coal dust for 15 years, satisfying the BLBA)*The 10th Circuit has declared that these cases are not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Wages*Agrawal v. Ogden (10th Cir., November 28, 2018) (affirming latest dismissal in a lengthy series of actions seeking to void the results of an unpaid wage dispute) *The 10th Circuit has declared this case not to be binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.