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.
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
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 ...
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a cheek swab of an arrestee's DNA is comparable to fingerprinting and therefore, a legal police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
A judge blocked the panel from releasing its report unless it included glaring language saying the committee was unlawfully constituted and operated.
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop.