What's this mean, Bridgewalker (or Tejon (or ((anyone else) - fistful)))?
Without knowing the substance of R. 47.5.4, I'm not entirely sure. However, I'm assuming that R. 47.5.4 outlines some very narrow exceptions, which would be typical, so I'm not too worried about it.
It states that this is an unpublished decision. That means that the court decided that their ruling should apply ONLY to the case they are ruling on. It is not binding law for anyone else. Courts do this all the time when confronted with a controversial issue that, for some reason, they don't want to make new law on. The reasons can be political or simply that the facts of the case are such that a response to those facts would not be an appropriate response to most situations involving the same laws.
Unpublished obviously doesn't mean that no one writes it down, it merely means that it's not included in the official reporter. This does mean that it might be harder to gain access to it. I'm pretty sure, for example, that my student accounts with Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis only give me access to unpublished decisions in Michigan. Unpublished decisions may be pursuasive, and therefore ma be used to help frame an argument, but that's it. An unpublished decision is virtually useless in other states/circuits. I would never cite an unpublished 5th circuit case in a Michigan court. It wouldn't work and depending on the judge, I'd get made fun of.