CK:
I understood your last phrase perfectly and I don't hink it's a double negative. How would you recast the sentence to be as succinct and still get the point across.
As to reported cases:
The only cases that are reported are those where there is a final decision written by the presiding judge or judges. Cases where the final decision is taken by a jury are never reported, at least I have never seen one in the thirty or so years I've been reading case law. (My wife thinks I'm crazy because I read Supreme Court cases for the fun of it. And she's the attorney!)
Once a case has been heard before a jury, unless there is a reversal for error, a jury never sees the case again. All of the appeals happen before one or more judges, who makes or make a decision on the appeal. I've no idea what percentage of these cases are "reported" which means simply that they are published in a series of books which are then readily available for research. But I do know that the higher up the legal hierarchy the more likely that a case will be reported, and at the highest levels (State Supreme Court, some Federal appeals benches, and of course SCOTUS) every case is reported. Note that there are never jury trials at that level.
If I had to guess I would say that probably 80 percent of the total of all judges' decisions are unreported, but they are still precedential in nature. It's so much easier, though, to cite to a published decision. In my first paralegal job I'd like to have a nickel for every time I cited US v. Shimer, 367 US 374. After all these years I can remember every detail of the case and why it was so important to veterans.
TEd
