The California Supreme Court explained the distinction in State of California ex rel. First, in Neary , we stressed the efficiency of effectuating settlements and thereby avoiding further litigation. As the case proceeds further into the appellate process, however, especially after an appellate decision is actually rendered, more is eradicated by a settlement, and less is gained by the avoidance of further litigation. Second, stipulating that the Court of Appeal opinion not be published and that we not render our own decision would effectively eliminate a precedent-setting appellate decision. However, appellate courts do have discretion to vacate appellate judgments.
Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole.
Congress has prescribed a primary route, by appeal as of right and certiorari, through which parties may seek relief from the legal consequences of judicial judgments. The Court expressly rejected the policy of fostering settlements as a basis for favoring vacatur. For two recent cases where Courts of Appeals granted vacatur under the U.S. Bancorp standards, see Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Pacific Trading Cards Inc. , No. Dedicated to preserving vacated decisions and to eliminating vacatur and stipulated reversals. 1987 U. Ill. L. Rev. 731.