Talk:Federal Appendix

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article says that unpublished opinions "tend to be extremely concise and cryptic," which is wrong. Most unpublished opinions are thorough and indistinguishable from published opinions. The article has no citation or other verification for its description of unpublished opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.44.122 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the Federal Appendix does not include 5th and 11th Circuit materials, but this claim is demonstrably false. Google Scholar does not appear to have Federal Appendix cases, but reported (and freely available) opinions routinely cite to 5th and 11th Circuit cases from the Federal Appendix. U.S. v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529 n.5 (5th Cir. 2009) cites eight 5th Circuit Federal Appendix cases in one footnote, and United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir. 2006) cites five 11th Circuit Federal Appendix cases in a single footnote.

Is there any reason why the article's claim regarding the 5th and 11th circuits shouldn't be deleted? It may have been correct at one point in the past, but it is unequivocally wrong now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.119.241 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was true at one time (see http://doug4justice.org/NoCite-Publish/Barnett.JAPPfinal.pdf, p.2). It should then be noted that the Federal Appendix did not initially include their opinions but that has since changed, and hopefully stating when it changed. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might as well be changed, even if the date of the change is uncertain. Incomplete correct information has to be better than wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.198.91.217 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]