Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A simple concurring opinion arises when a judge joins the decision of the court but has something to add. Concurring in judgment means that the judge agrees with the majority decision (the case's ultimate outcome in terms of who wins and who loses) but not with the reasoning of the majority opinion (why one side wins and the other loses).
An argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument.An argument map typically includes all the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons. [1]
Only the reason for the decision of the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning may be adopted in an argument. Apart from the rules of procedure for precedent, the weight given to any reported judgment may depend on the reputation of both the reporter and the judges. [7]
A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law, though they can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in subsequent cases when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law, and a later case may ...
The arguments and reasoning of a dissenting judgment (the term used in the United Kingdom [14] also constitute obiter dicta. These, however, might also be cited should a court determine that its previous decision was in error, as when the United States Supreme Court cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Hammer v.
Where a wide new class of distinguished cases is made, such as distinguishing all cases on privity of contract law in the establishment of the court-made tort of negligence or a case turns on too narrow a set of variations in facts ("turns on its own facts") compared to the routinely applicable precedent(s), such decisions are at high risk of being successfully overruled (by higher courts) on ...
In the IRAC method of legal analysis, the "issue" is simply a legal question that must be answered. An issue arises when the facts of a case present a legal ambiguity that must be resolved in a case, and legal researchers (whether paralegals, law students, lawyers, or judges) typically resolve the issue by consulting legal precedent (existing statutes, past cases, court rules, etc.).
Elaboration likelihood model is a general theory of attitude change.According to the theory's developers Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, they intended to provide a general "framework for organizing, categorizing, and understanding the basic processes underlying the effectiveness of persuasive communications".