In the third meaning, an obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge A judge, or arbiter of justice, is a lead who presides over a court of law, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is like an umpire in a game and conducts the trial impartially and in an open court. The that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words "introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument."[1] Unlike the rationes decidendi It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political, and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis. Certain courts are able to overrule, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis Stare decisis is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the set-up precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the Latin phrase Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established", statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales England and Wales is a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. It consists of England and Wales, two of the four countries of the United Kingdom. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, England and Wales follow the legal system known as English law, and the two form the constitutional successor to the former Kingdom of England, they can be strongly persuasive.
An example of an instance where a court opinion may include obiter dicta is where a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority to hear a case or dismisses the case on a technicality. If the court in such a case offers opinions on the merits of the case, such opinions may constitute obiter dicta. Less clear-cut instances of obiter dicta occur where a judge makes a side comment in an opinion to provide context for other parts of the opinion, or makes a thorough exploration of a relevant area of law. Another example would be where the judge, in explaining his ruling, provides a hypothetical set of facts and explains how he or she believes the law would apply to those facts.
In reaching decisions, courts sometimes quote passages of obiter dicta found in the texts of the opinions from prior cases, with or without acknowledging the quoted passage's status as obiter dicta. A quoted passage of obiter dicta may become part of the holding or ruling in a subsequent case, depending on what the latter court actually decided and how that court treated the principle embodied in the quoted passage.
Obiter dicta can be influential. One example in United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States, and leads the federal judiciary. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Once appointed, Justices effectively history is the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for the obiter dictum statement that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. A passing remark from Chief Justice The Chief Justice in many countries is the name for the presiding member of a Supreme Court in Commonwealth or other countries with an Anglo-Saxon justice system based on English common law, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, the Supreme Court of India, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Morrison R. Waite, recorded by the court reporter before oral argument, now forms the basis for the doctrine that juristic persons The term legal person is a concept in philosophy of law topics wherein an entity is regarded by law to be like a person with such status being granted legal rights to protections and/or privileges under law. It is a term found in business-corporate law and animal rights law contexts, wherein corporations are regarded as highly productive human are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868. Whether or not Chief Justice Waite's remark constitutes binding precedent is arguable, but subsequent rulings treat it as such.
The arguments and reasoning of a dissenting opinion also constitute obiter dicta.
Notes
- ^ Black's Law Dictionary Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases p. 967 (5th ed. 1979).
Categories: Case law | Common law | Latin legal phrases
