The phrase "a published judgment" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in legal contexts to refer to a decision made by a court that has been made public.
Example: "The case was significant because it set a precedent, as it was the first time a published judgment addressed this specific issue."
Alternatives: "an issued ruling" or "a public decision".
The appeal court president, Margaret McMurdo, in a published judgment found that the land court "must consider" so-called scope 3 emissions from transporting and burning coal overseas when weighing up a mine's environmental authority.
So why would [she] choose to subject herself to police interviews, court proceedings, cross-examination, over a period of two years, if there was no substance to what she was saying?" Appeal court president Margaret McMurdo, in a published judgment, said the prosecutor was "entitled to address the jury as to why they should not accept the motives for giving false evidence".
But a number of published judgments have made it increasingly clear that those resources are often squeezed reluctantly out of council coffers, which are down to their last few pennies due to successive rounds of cuts.
When courts are publishing judgments containing intensely private material, anonymisation is critical.
"I don't think you get transparency through publishing judgments on Bailii.
If there isn't, that judgment should appear on the website of the British and Irish Legal Information Institute, the organisation responsible for publishing judgments online.
The supreme court published a judgment this week about ex-cohabitees' entitlements to a share in their former home.
One critic pronounced it "the worst book ever published," a judgment that Mr. Vansittart managed to shrug off as he embarked on a writing career that would produce about 50 novels and dozens of other works.
In a judgment published on Wednesday, the court ruled that a Scientology chapel in central London was a "place of meeting for religious worship" and that it would be "discriminatory and unjust" if followers were unable to marry using their own religious service.
In a judgment published on Thursday, the Syrian government was found to have targeted journalists deliberately during the country's civil war in order to "intimidate newsgathering" and suppress dissent.
In a judgment published on Wednesday, Mr Justice Green rejected arguments presented at the high court by five junior doctors that the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, had exceeded his powers.
