Talk:Obiter dictum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Latin (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 


Anything said by judges in a case, which is not part of the ratio, which is not related to the material facts is an obiter statement. case law for obiter dicta.

Ratio Decidendi[edit]

Ratio Decidendi - Latin - "The reason fot the decision" It is the point in a case which determines the judgement or the principle which the case establishes.

I always considered that it was the point upon which reasoning turns.it is the principle of the previous dicision.

Obiter[edit]

From the article: "obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta, often referred to simply as dicta)"

Is it not often referred to simply as obiter? If you refer to "dicta" that seems to be the part of the case that ISN'T obiter, it's the obiter bit that means by the way while the dictum of a case is the ratio, the opposite.

No, the abbreviated term is "dicta", not "obiter." Famspear (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Globalize[edit]

Article places undue focus on SCOTUS. Obiter dictum has presence in other common law jurisdictions that aren't covered in as much detail. Dtlyng (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And you place undue emphasis on the fact that the article seemingly places emphasis on the SCOTUS. Perhaps you would provide some examples from the historical case law of the Supreme Court of Tibet? Or, how about arguments from Eskimo tribal meetings of the 15th century? This would make the article sufficiently general, hmmmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.179.106 (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Significance Section[edit]

A section that's been in this page since Nov 2006 is a word-for-word plagiarism from "Legal Writing by Design", full cite on the edited page. I fixed it to adequately credit the original work. Cchessman (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Shaw and Knuller[edit]

In Shaw v DPP [....] In a dissenting judgment, Lord Reid said: [....] Subsequently, Lord Reid was the leading judge in Knuller v. DPP [....] In this case, Lord Reid said he still disagreed with the decision in Knuller, but in the interests of certainty he would not overturn Knuller.

I'm guessing that Knuller in the last sentence ought to be Shaw. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)