Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A seriatim opinion is an opinion delivered by a court with multiple judges, in which each judge reads his or her own opinion rather than a single judge writing an opinion on behalf of the entire court.
At the International Court of Justice, the term "separate opinion" is used and judges can also add declarations to the judgment. The term concurring opinion is used at the Supreme Court of the United States. The European Court of Human Rights uses the term concurring opinion and calls both concurring and dissenting opinions separate opinions ...
In parliamentary procedure, using Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the motion to consider by paragraph (or consider seriatim) is used to consider separately the different parts of a report or long motion consisting of a series of resolutions, paragraphs, articles, or sections that are not totally separate questions.
A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a judicial panel in the course of resolving a legal dispute, providing the decision reached to resolve the dispute, and usually indicating the facts which led to the dispute and an analysis of the law used to arrive at the decision.
Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam. [3] Per curiam decisions tend to be short. [ 3 ] In modern practice, they are most commonly used in summary decisions that the Court resolves without full argument and briefing. [ 4 ]
While Chief Justice John Marshall was frequently able to steer the opinions of most of the justices, Johnson demonstrated an independent streak. Johnson restored the practice of delivering seriatim opinions (a separate opinion from the opinion of the Court) and from 1805 through 1833, he wrote nearly half of the Supreme Court's dissenting opinions.
(At that time, there was no opinion of the court or majority opinion; the justices delivered their opinions seriatim or individually, in ascending order of seniority.) [4] The Court ruled that Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution expressly extended federal judicial power to suits between a state and a citizen of another state, and placed ...
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796), [1] is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages [2] did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes.