You can get away with that in Law School. Don't ever try it in an appellate brief. Just steal the arguments as if they are your own, but if you cite an unpublished case for any authority you can be sanctioned.
This all goes back to my central First Amendment theorem - freedom of speech does not guarantee access to a forum. When the government provides a forum, you gotta play by the government's rules.
True, but the government's rules must be even-handed. In this case the fags (bassoon players) are free to push their in-your-face ANTI-CHIRSTIAN agenda, but any legitimate response to it, such as a memo about "family values" is visited with potential or real governmental sanctions against the author.
That the courts could view the word "family values" as being harassment or discriminatory is the part of this opinion which is most disturbing. This is a clear illegal infringment upon free speech.
More complex than that, at least in the 2d Circuit. You can cite any summary order dated after Jan. 1, 2007. Older cases cannot be cited for purposes other than estoppel or res judicata.
Sometimes, if it has a really useful turn of phrase (or if it is exactly on point), I'll cite it as "an unpublished opinion with limited precedential value" or something like that. The judges I've worked with prefer that I note it that way rather than pretend it doesn't exist.
I also don't do appellate work. Don't like it.