Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming the point of law is one on which there is no binding precedent already in effect). The conflict in views between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion can assist a lawyer in understanding the points of law articulated in the majority opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Roberts argued that police should have the flexibility to pursue suspected criminals regardless of the crime while noting that the ruling will confound law enforcement. [3] Suppose a police officer on patrol responds to a report of a man assaulting a teenager.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process clause of the 14th Amendment. [1]
As with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and majority opinions can often illuminate the precise holding of the majority opinion. The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the existing case law, the application of different principles, or a different ...
Criminal justice ethics (also police ethics) is the academic study of ethics as it is applied in the area of law enforcement. Usually, a course in ethics is required of candidates for hiring as law enforcement officials. These courses focus on subject matter which is primarily guided by the needs of social institutions and societal values. Law ...
Concurring opinion (also called a "concurrence"), a legal opinion which supports the conclusion, though not always the reasoning, of the majority. Concurrent estate, a concept in property law; Concurrent resolution, a legislative measure passed by both chambers of the United States Congress
In that situation, several concurring opinions may be written, none of which is the view of a majority of the members of the court. Therefore, the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion. Normally, appellate courts (or panels) are staffed with an odd number of judges to avoid a tie.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.