Potential Significance
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Posner chastized the appellants for “ostrich advocacy”:
“When there is an apparently dispositive precedent, an appellant may urge its overruling or distinguishing or reserve a challenge to it for a petition for certiorari but may not simply ignore it. We don’t know the thinking that led the appellants’ counsel in these two cases to do that. But we do know that the two sets of cases out of which the appeals arise, involving the blood-products and Bridgestone/Firestone tire litigations, generated many transfers under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, three of which we affirmed in the two ignored precedents. There are likely to be additional such appeals; maybe appellants think that if they ignore our precedents their appeals will not be assigned to the same panel as decided the cases that established the precedents. Whatever the reason, such advocacy is unacceptable.
…
The ostrich is a noble animal, but not a proper model for an appellate advocate. (Not that ostriches really bury their heads in the sand when threatened; don’t be fooled by the picture below.) The “ostrich-like tactic of pretending that potentially dispositive authority against a litigant’s contention does not exist is as unprofessional as it is pointless.”
If the words weren’t enough, Justice Posner offered up the following illustrations, which were placed directly in the opinion:
So don’t be an ostrich. Distinguish adverse authorities with your head high (and firmly out of the sand).
Case Information
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Docket Numbers: 11-1665, 08-2792
x x x."
