Theoretically, based on the above definitions, we have clear rules and clear lines that guide us. Maintenance (and perhaps the legal saying) is a binding precedent that must be followed, while obiter dictum is more like unsolicited parental advice from a friend – considered respectfully, yes, but freely ignored if you disagree. Therefore, it should be extremely important to know if a particular statement or saying holds. And, of course, there are a number of examples in our jurisprudence in which this conclusion has played a role. See, for example, Staat v. Poole, 228 N.C. App. 248 (2013) (dismissed either as an obiter dicta or as a separate holding company). n.
Latin for “remark,” a comment made by a judge in a decision or decision that is not necessary to make the decision, but may specify a related principle of law as the judge understands it. Although it can be cited in legal arguments, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous judicial decisions or interpretations) because the commentary was not part of the legal basis of the judgment. The standard counter-argument is, “It`s just a saying (or dictation).” It almost goes without saying that the precedent of every case lies in its involvement. The guidelines for future cases stem from the legal findings of our courts of appeal that these are the elements of the crime, that it was an adverse error or that it was insufficient evidence. See State v. Howell, 211 N.C. App. 613 (2011) (“The actual assets of the relevant recourse reports must be consulted”). (2) Look for places where the court talks about the history of a legal term. This discussion can help put the law in context (and in fact, you may find it useful in your studies for exactly that reason!), but the history of a common law statute or rule is not necessary to decide the issues in a particular case.
In French law, the report of a judgment of one of the judges who rendered it is called a saying. Thus, our results show that the distinction between saying and detention plays an important role in less than 1 federal district court case in 2000 (140 out of 327,524) and in less than 1 in 4,000 cases before a state court (60 out of 295,452) or a federal district court (20 out of 80,421). If we summarize all the cases, we estimate that the consistent invocations of the distinction between restraint and saying occur about once in 3200 cases (220 out of 703,397). […] obiter dictum, a Latin expression meaning “that which is said casually”, a casual statement. In particular, it refers in law to a passage of a judicial notice that is not necessary for the resolution of the dispute before the court. Such statements do not have the power of a precedent, but can still be significant. The “judicial saying” is a statement that the court expressly uses to guide the parties in their future conduct. As a general rule, such an expression of opinion on a point at issue in a case, raised by defence counsel and intentionally mentioned by the court, although not essential to the decision of the case, differs from a mere obiter dictum, and it becomes relevant if it is expressly declared by the court as a guideline for future conduct. Therefore, a legal saying should have decisive weight in a lower court. Conversely, a court is not required to follow the diktat in a previous case where the currently disputed issue has not been fully discussed.
Although useless, dicta are still studied and appreciated for their potential usefulness. Dictations are often found in later opinions and sometimes even serve as the basis for those opinions. An example of this is The case of United States v. Carolene Products, in which Harlan F. Stone J. suggested in the now famous footnote 4 that a legal rule stricter than the rational basic test should be applied in hypothetical and future situations. The wording of footnote 4 ultimately served as the basis for teaching the strict examination. The problem, of course, is that the above definitions leave some room for interpretation. If a notice of appeal states that X is not a violation, but that Y or Z would be likely, what precedent does this have in future cases where Y or Z is involved? The attitude of a lawyer may be the saying of another lawyer, and my obiter dicta may be your legal saying.