Consistent positions?

This is really more of an observation, and those who aren't interested in the legal nuances may be less interested in this part.  However, I was pondering some of the recent legal activities. 

The Appellate Courts are important in our system, because they write opinions that can be cited in future cases.  Thus, a favorable opinion at the Appellate Court can be helpful, and an unfavorable one can hurt your position.  I didn't know this before, but apparently Appellate Courts don't publish every opinion, and parties may weigh in and ask an Appellate Court to publish (or not to publish).

Back in Oct 2012, there was a case in Los Angeles that was important to LASD, because it clarified that Districts can place charter schools outside of the district's geographic boundaries.  It also was crystal clear that the District can -and should- give equal weight to the in-district students when contemplating "reasonable equivalence" and the impact of a facilities request.

BCS apparently asked the Cal Supreme Court to depublish, which they declined to do.  LASD filed an amicus brief asking that the opinion remain published.  The court decided to publish the opinion, and of course LASD included it in subsequent filings with the courts in our own case.

Last year when the Cal Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Bullis IV (the 2009-10 facilities case), BCS kept telling people that the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.  I wonder how they'd describe this event?  Does the decision to publish the ruling mean that the Supreme Court has now also ruled in LASD's favor on this key issue?


Like I said, more in the details, but an interesting thought...