(1) Nonprecedential Decisions
(a) The judges participating in the decision of an appeal submitted to a department may issue a nonprecedential decision as follows: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(ii) By issuing a nonprecedential memorandum opinion, designated by a notation on the title page of the opinion substantially to the effect of the following: “This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).”
(b) A nonprecedential memorandum opinion may be authored or per curiam.
(c) Nonprecedential memorandum opinions are not precedent and are not binding authority except as relevant under the law of the case doctrine or the rules of claim preclusion or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(d) Nonprecedential memorandum opinions may be cited to identify nonprecedential memorandum opinions that conflict with each other if relevant to an issue before the court or to identify recurring legal issues for which there is no clear precedent. When citing a nonprecedential memorandum opinion, the citing party shall:
(i) Explain the reason for citing the nonprecedential memorandum opinion and how it is relevant to the issues presented; and
(ii) Include a parenthetical as part of the case citation indicating that the case is a “nonprecedential memorandum opinion.”
(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 opinion, and the author of such separate opinion 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(vi) Whether the opinion resolves a conflict among existing nonprecedential memorandum opinions brought to the court’s attention.
