Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again. Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. View translated passages only. Oxford Law Citator. Justice Lamer as he then was [4] wrote a concurring decision. A precedent is set by a decision from a higher court which a lower court judge must follow when facing a case with similar facts. For example, a trial court in Alberta is bound by the decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which is a higher level of court, as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Even though the Supreme Court of Canada is not bound by its previous decisions, the Court will often follow those previous decisions to allow for consistency and certainty in legal interpretation. For example, in the Rodriguez [7] decision, Justice McLachlin as she then was wrote a dissenting opinion, which later influenced the majority decision in the Carter [8] decision dealing with medical assistance in dying.
With some exceptions, [9] only the Supreme Court has the ability to change how courts are to interpret the law. However, there must be good reason for the Court to overrule a previous decision, such as a change in social realities or a different legal principle being raised. Sometimes there can be multiple sets of concurring decisions.
More concurring decisions can make it more difficult to understand the main point of a case. For example, in the Mikisew Cree [10] decision, the Supreme Court delivered a majority decision, and three sets of concurring decisions. A dissenting opinion is an opinion written by a justice who voted in the minority and feels strongly enough that he wants to explain why he disagrees with his colleagues.
Since the dissenting opinion represents the minority position, the reasoning is not binding precedent. However, the dissenting opinion offers valuable insight into the deliberative process behind a case and articulates reasoning that future court cases could revisit.
A concurring opinion agrees with the outcome of the majority opinion but not necessarily the reasoning found in the majority opinion. The concurring opinion gives a concurring justice an opportunity to further explain the legal reasoning of a case or to offer a completely different legal reasoning for the decision.
Although she agrees with the outcome, the concurring justice may feel that the majority arrived there the wrong way, and she might want to make sure that her analysis is known.
Concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different or additional reasons as the basis for his or her decision.
Hope this helps: grendeldekt and 1 more users found this answer helpful. The correct answer is A the statement written that adds information or facts to the majority opinion. The concurring opinion is the statement written that adds information or facts to the majority opinion. We are talking about legal terms, specifically a term used by the justices of the Supreme Court.
0コメント