Talk:Obiter dictum

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
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

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

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)[reply]

Globalize

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plagiarism in Significance Section

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)[reply]

Shaw and Knuller

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)[reply]

Dogs and balls

The example given in the Carbolic Smoke Ball case is clearly covered by the substantive ruling "An offer can be made to al the world." Moreover it is given as an example of something that leaves no doubt as to its persuasiveness, in comparison with the instant case. As such I don't see it really qualifies in the useful sense as an example of an obiter - anyone accepting the ruling (and principle) in Carbolic would have no need to refer to this text to confirm that an offer of a reward for a lost dog did not require aceptance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]