71 Sentences With "obiter dicta" | Random Sentence Generator

Hersey and Wolfe were given to issuing restrictive obiter dicta about nonfiction writing.

Courts may consider obiter dicta in opinions of higher courts. Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The phrase obiter dicta is usually translated as "other things said", but due to the high number of judges and individual concurring opinions, it is often hard to distinguish from the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision). For these reasons, the obiter dicta may often be taken into consideration by a court.

Scottish decisions (and decisions from the USA and common law jurisdictions in the Commonwealth) are, like obiter dicta, merely persuasive in England.

Birrell found success as a writer with the publication of a volume of essays entitled Obiter Dicta in 1884. This was followed by a second series of Obiter Dicta in 1887 and Res Judicatae in 1892. These, despite their titles, were not concerned with law, but he also wrote books on copyright and on trusts. Birrell wrote, and spoke, with a characteristic humour which became known as birrelling.

The Legal & Literary Society, Osgoode Hall Law School's official student society, coordinates student activities both on and off campus. The organization also funds over fifty student clubs, as well as the student newspaper, Obiter Dicta.

Denham J disavowed the dicta in Furey reasoning the time difference in both cases in her judgement: "These words were obiter dicta. Further, they appear in a judgement where the delay was one of four years. That is of an entirely different magnitude to the delay in this case of 29 years" The obiter dicta was not enough to persuade the court that there was a wrongful conviction". Fennelly J agreed: "In the nature of things a short delay might require only slight explanation.

A litigant may also consider obiter dicta if a court has previously signaledCoale & Couture, Loud Rules, 34 Pepperdine L. Rev. 3 (2007). that a particular legal argument is weak and may even warrant sanctions if repeated.

Mowbray has suggested that the court may have been influenced in its decision by the doubts expressed by some of the Obiter dicta of the domestic proceedings which expressed doubts about the durability of the armed forces policy towards homosexuals.

The Chng Suan Tze decision is more notable for the issues that the Court of Appeal discussed obiter dicta, having already allowed the appeals on the ground that the respondents had not discharged their burden of proving the President's satisfaction.

Judicial independence would later be extended under the Provincial Judges Reference of 1997, which followed Valente in stating that judges should enjoy administrative independence; however, this meant overturning obiter dicta in Valente that judicial salary commissions were not needed to ensure a salary is free of political manipulation.

My role in all this is to set > the agenda and then to prod and provoke when necessary – definitely not to > hand down obiter dicta. Though his belief in moral science has not been adopted by the greater community of historians, he retains the respected reputation that he enjoyed among his contemporaries.

Co., the court held that the Supreme Court had only held post-sale restrictions invalid in price-fixing and tie-in cases, and therefore the general language outlawing post-sale restrictions was merely obiter dicta that could be ignored. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed this doctrine in 2016 in Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc.

Wade despite its emphasis on stare decisis, Chief Justice Rehnquist in dissent argued that this section was entirely obiter dicta. All these opening sections were joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens for the majority. The remainder of the decision did not command a majority, but at least two other Justices concurred in judgment on each of the remaining points.

For these reasons, it was strongly suggested that the government establish judicial salary commissions, thus overruling obiter dicta in the previous landmark judicial independence case, Valente v. The Queen, which had found such commissions were desirable but not necessary. In this case, it was noted commissions could guard against manipulation by both the executive and legislatures.

The Court also ruled, in obiter dicta, that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.

Phang Chin Hock, p. 73. The Indian Constitution was drafted by a constituent assembly representative of the Indian people in territorial, racial and community terms,. while both the Malaysian and Singapore Constitutions were enacted by ordinary legislatures. The basic structure doctrine was first cited with approval by the Federal Court in obiter dicta in Sivarasa Rasiah v.

1928 only to find Eliot extending his criticisms in another review in The Criterion.Eliot, T. S., 'Mr Lucas's Webster ', The Criterion, June 1928, pp.155-158 Lucas counter-attacked in his 1929 essay 'Modern Criticism',Lucas, F. L., 'Criticism', Life and Letters Nov. 1929, reprinted in his Studies French and English (1934) ridiculing Eliot's literary-critical obiter dicta and hieratic tone.

Stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta ("things said by the way"). As the United States Supreme Court has put it: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding".Central Green Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425 (2001), quoting Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 627 (1935).

Radford had an interest in literature and published occasional verses and essays. In 1894 he wrote Shylock and Others a selection of eight literary studies (published by T Fisher Unwin) and in 1917 he published Verses and Versicles (T Fisher Unwin). But he also had an interest in Shakespeare. In 1884, the Liberal politician Augustine Birrell published a collection of essays entitled Obiter Dicta (Elliot Stock).

In the UK there are conflicting obiter dicta in "The Rafaela S" [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 113 and "The Happy Ranger" [2002] 2 AER (Comm) 23, so the matter must remain unclear even though there are serious problems, for example, arising from the everyday occurrence of cargo being discharged against letters of indemnity when original bills of lading are not yet available to be presented at the discharge port.

Inferior courts are not strictly courts of record, but some, such as employment tribunals methodically report their own cases, and have built up a specialist body of common law. Courts such as the magistrates court cannot establish precedent. Even if a court is bound to observe a precedent decision, it does not follow that the whole of the judgment is binding. One must distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta.

Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case. It is commonly credited as having decided that a person to whom a suspect is remanded, such as a bail bondsman, has sweeping rights to recover the suspect. However, this is erroneous, since the commonly cited portion of the case, obiter dicta, has no binding precedential value (although dicta can have persuasive value).

The Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford could not lower consumer prices and raise employee salaries. Notably, obiter dicta in the opinion written by Russell C. Ostrander argued that the profits to the stockholders should be the primary concern for the company directors. Because this company was in business for profit, Ford could not turn it into a charity. This was compared to a spoliation of the company's assets.

Past Canadian case law, like Re Federal Republic of Germany and Rauca and obiter dicta in Canada v. Schmidt (1987) also indicated extradition was a violation, but still a justified limit, on section 6. The Court then turned to section 1 of the Charter, which provides for reasonable limits on rights. Cotroni declined to argue that extradition was unreasonable under section 1, since predent had already determined it was reasonable.

The decision is also important for its treatment of oral testimony as evidence of historic occupation. While much of the decision is technically obiter dicta (since a new trial was ordered due to errors in how the evidence and pleadings were treated), the principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44. There has not yet been a second trial in this case.

Lord Nicholls gave the first judgment and said the following on vicarious liability: Lord Millett gave a concurring judgment. In obiter dicta he said that the claim could be based on dishonesty, like for liability in assisting breach of trust. At the same time it could ‘be based simply on the receipt, treating it as a restitutionary claim independent of any wrongdoing.’ Lord Hobhouse gave a short concurring judgment.

The House of Lords overruledSince the 1966 Practice Statement, the House of Lords has been able to depart from its own precedent in order to achieve justice. Anns and held that the council was not liable in the absence of physical injury.As this case concerned economic loss, not personal injury, the House of Lord's statement on this point is obiter dicta. Also, the case of Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC was disapproved.

Vogenauer (2005) p. 646 The courts' cautiously optimistic acceptance of Pepper, which included an attempt to include it in the House of Lords' Practice Directions, soon began to wane. Although the lower courts applied the decision and allowed the use of Hansard, and the Lords itself initially followed it in R v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Johnson,[1993] 1 All ER 299 several objections and limits were expressed in later obiter dicta and ratio decidendi.Scott (1993) p.

Things did not improve for Benchley and Obiter Dicta, and a failed practical joke at a company banquet further strained the relationship between Benchley and his superiors.Altman, 61–68. He continued his attempts to develop his own voice within the publication, but Benchley and Curtis were not a good match, and he eventually left,Yates, 31–34. as Curtis was considering eliminating Benchley's role and he had been offered a position in Boston with a better salaryAltman, 67–68.

There was never any question that the main damage was suffered by the tenant and the tenant had the same locus standi as the landlord, exercising under a lease from time to time his legal rights. The question of liability in tort was not considered, instead a few words were said if that question had to be considered by the court (obiter dicta). The question was whether not having been privy to the original agreement was a bar to any recovery.

The four people argued that the obiter dicta in that case supported their interpretation of section 41, that it was a guarantee rather than a transitional provision. The Commonwealth electoral officers, who were represented by the Solicitor-General of Australia Sir Maurice Byers, and William Gummow (a future Justice of the High Court), argued that section 41 was indeed intended to be a transitional provision. They linked it with section 8, Application of Colonial Boundaries Act. and section 30 of the Constitution of Australia, Qualification of electors.

The judges affirmed that assisting or rescuing should be promoted (although with more caution to oneself when taking the risk). This notion of encouraging rescuers has a longer history, as noted in the ratio and obiter dicta of former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Benjamin Cardozo in Wagner v International Railway Co 133 NE 437 (1921): “Danger invites rescue. The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer”.

Birrell did not defend his seat in the 1918 general election, nor did he ever return to Ireland. In 1929, he accepted an honorary doctorate from the National University of Ireland, but storms in the Irish Sea prevented him from making the crossing and he had to receive his degree in absentia.Irish Times 9 August 2008 He returned to literature with a further volume of essays and book reviews, More Obiter Dicta (1920) and a book on his father-in-law, Frederick Locker-Lampson. He died in London on 20 November 1933, aged eighty-three.

But then it could not be used in place of a confession as required for a death sentence. However, this may be, one would expect that the court would have "cribbed" from the intendits when writing the verdicts of the case. But this appears to have been the case in only a limited sense if one compares the texts of the intendits with the eventual verdicts. It looks as if the intendits only provided (rather tedious) filler material (obiter dicta) between the preamble of the verdicts and the rationes decidendi before the sentence.

In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles.

The process of determining the ratio decidendi is a correctly thought analysis of what the court actually decided—essentially, based on the legal points about which the parties in the case actually fought. All other statements about the law in the text of a court opinion—all pronouncements that do not form a part of the court's rulings on the issues actually decided in that particular case (whether they are correct statements of law or not)—are obiter dicta, and are not rules for which that particular case stands.

Justice Felix Frankfurter filed a concurring opinion in which he disagreed with the majority's explicit rejection of the lower court's ruling that the Government could not challenge patent validity. He argued that the Court should not opine on that in obiter dicta since it was unanimous that "the arrangements challenged by the Government as violative of the Sherman Law cannot find shelter under the patent law, howsoever valid the patents of the defendants may be." He insisted, "Deliberate dicta, I had supposed, should be deliberately avoided."333 U.S. at 402.

Taxation is a power of the federal and provincial legislatures; provincial taxation is more restricted, in accordance with sections 92(2) and 92(9) of the Constitution Act, 1867. In Allard Contractors Ltd. v. Coquitlam (District), provincial legislatures may levy an indirect fee as part of a valid regulatory scheme. Gérard La Forest observed obiter dicta that section 92(9) (with provincial powers over property and civil rights and matters of a local or private nature) allows for the levying of license fees even if they constitute indirect taxation.

One aspect of the decision on which all judges agreed was that the High Court would not determine hypothetical or abstract question with Griffith stating "The questions submitted in the case are to a great extent of an abstract character. In my judgment the provisions of sec. 31 were not intended to allow the submission of hypothetical or abstract questions of law which may never arise for actual decision. Any opinions expressed by the Court on such questions can only be obiter dicta of more or less weight, but having no binding authority".

Justice Severson dissented on the grounds that the "exigent circumstances" definition was too vague and this situation did not meet the standards as the state vet had said that the cats were in good health. Severson also stated that the driver was not charged with any traffic offense and that she should have been, had the State intended to rely on her being unable to operate the vehicle as that was their focus in the seizure hearings. Justice Meierhenry concurred with the obiter dicta dissent. The case was later cited as precedent in South Dakota state law.

An illustration of its strictness is Bowman v Secular Society, where it was held that even when attempted changes to the law were ancillary to the main goals, it was still unacceptable.Hudson (2009) p.1011 There is a dividing line; charitable trusts discussing political issues can be valid, as discussed by Hoffmann J obiter dicta in Attorney General v Ross.[1985] 3 All ER 334 This line is considered by the Charity Commission in their official guidelines, which allow the Commission to look at the wider purpose of the organisation when deciding if it constitutes a valid charity.

Gleeson said: > In making that choice I am influenced by the general principle of > interpretation stated above. I am also influenced by the consideration that > the detention in question is mandatory, not discretionary. In a case of > uncertainty, I would find it easier to discern a legislative intention to > confer a power of indefinite administrative detention if the power were > coupled with a discretion... Accordingly, he found that a proper construction of the provisions of the Act would not permit Al-Kateb's detention to continue indefinitely. Justice Callinan, who was in the majority, also discussed the purpose of detention, in obiter dicta.

The different roles of case law in civil and common law traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often interpret the wider legal principles. The necessary analysis (called ratio decidendi), then constitutes a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called obiter dicta, which constitute persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally shorter, referring only to statutes.

But in the absence of any other evidence the presumption will still apply. The earliest known case where the presumption has been cited dates from 1677.Grey v Grey (1677) 2 Swans 594; 36 ER 742 In the Hong Kong case of Suen Shu Tai v Tam Fung Tai [2014] HKEC 1125 the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, in obiter dicta, preferred the modern approach in that the presumption of advancement applies equally where a mother transfers property to her child. However, it left open the question of whether the presumption applies where a mother transfers property to an adult independent child.

Shortly after the > decision, Attorney General John Ashcroft directed the adoption of the > Emerson court's view as the policy of the Justice Department in a memo to > all ninety-three United States Attorneys in November 2001. In contrast, > legal critics of the "individualist view" repudiated the Emerson analysis on > various grounds. Judge Robert M. Parker, while concurring in the Emerson > result, labeled the majority's analysis as obiter dicta, irrelevant to the > outcome of the case (see Emerson, Spitzer 2003). Moreover, the thoroughness > of the Emerson analysis was criticized because the court's rendered opinion > relied substantially on interpretations submitted in a "brief presented by > one party" (Spitzer 2003).

It is presently not known whether Singapore courts will eventually adopt the current legal position in the United Kingdom. Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong observed during a 2010 lecture that what the High Court said about Anisminic in Stansfield was obiter dicta because the actual decision was "based on a breach of natural justice and not the doctrine of error of law".. The court had concluded that the ouster clause was ineffective in preventing judicial review of the minister's decision, as the plaintiff had not been given a fair opportunity to present its case with knowledge of the opponent's allegations.Stansfield, pp. 875–877, paras. 26–34.

In other words, ratio decidendi is a legal rule derived from, and consistent with, those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which the outcome of the case depends. It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis. Certain courts are able to overrule decisions of a court of coordinate jurisdiction—however, out of interests of judicial comity, they generally try to follow coordinate rationes.

"The appropriate criterion" for determining the limits of a seller's freedom to impose restrictions, according to the Federal Circuit, "is whether [the patentee's or licensor's] restriction is reasonably within the patent grant, or whether the patentee has ventured beyond the patent grant and into behavior having an anticompetitive effect not justifiable under the rule of reason". In so ruling, the Federal Circuit said that any sweeping statements by the Supreme Court about property rights, and about post-sale restrictions on customers' use of patented products not being patent infringement, are mere obiter dicta that may properly be disregarded in cases not involving price-fixes or tie-ins.

He had, to a certain extent, relied on them in England, by arranging to travel to Monaco for the auction, and he had suffered loss in England where the car was found not to meet the description in the brochure. The car had, however, been subject to auction in Monaco where the bid sum was payable. The court held that the claimant's decision to bid and to commit himself to the purchase that was "by far the most significant" act, and that was done in Monaco. The judge offered the obiter dicta that had the claimant made a telephone bid from England, a different judgment would probably have been made.

Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988. The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered obiter dicta the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA"). The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power.

It had to be implicitly limited in scope. The House of Lords rejected this argument, holding both the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 to be completely valid. However, in obiter dicta Lord Hope did argue that the "rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based", that Parliamentary sovereignty "is no longer, if it ever was, absolute", it cannot be used to defend unconstitutional Acts (as determined by the courts).[2005] UKHL 56, [120] 'Parliamentary sovereignty is an empty principle if legislation is passed which is so absurd or so unacceptable that the populace at large refuses to recognise it as law'.

Only the ratio decidendi (that is, the legal principle that determines the outcome) of a case is binding according to the doctrine of stare decisis; other legal principles expressed that are not crucial to the final decision (obiter dicta) are only persuasive.Chan, pp. 113–121. As English courts do not form part of Singapore's hierarchy of courts, decisions of such courts are not binding on Singapore courts. However, as a result of Singapore's colonial heritage, English judicial precedents continue to exercise a strong influence on the legal system and are regarded as highly persuasive, particularly as regards the development of the common law, and the interpretation of English statutes applicable in Singapore and Singapore statutes modelled on English enactments.

If the question states a specific jurisdiction then it is proper to include rules specific to that jurisdiction. Another distinction often made in the rule section is a clear delineation of rules that are in holding, and binding based on the authority of the hierarchy of the court, being ratio decidendi, and being the majority ruling, or simply persuasive. There are occasions when rules are adopted on the basis they are the only clearly articulated rules on the issue, in spite of being minority decisions, obiter dicta, and from lower courts, in other jurisdictions, which have never been contradicted. The rules help make a correct legal analysis of the issue at hand using the facts of the case.

The different roles of case law in civil law and common law traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often an exegesis of the wider legal principles. These are called ratio decidendi and constitute a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called obiter dicta, which have persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short, referring only to statutes, not very analytical, and fact-based.

The Federal Circuit held that patent rights are not property interests under the Fifth Amendment, reasoning that § 1498's "new and limited waiver of sovereign immunity" would have been unnecessary if Congress intended for patents to be compensable rights under the Takings Clause. The Federal Circuit so ruled despite a number of obiter dicta in previous decisions that assumed that patent infringement was a taking of property. The Federal Circuit's ruling is consistent with current Supreme Court takings jurisprudence, however, because patent infringement does not usually deprive the patentee of substantially all of the value of the patent.See (no taking because NYC's action did not deprive Penn Central of substantially all of the value of Grand Central Station).

The Court of Appeal went even further in a recent debt repayment case, Collier v P&M; J Wright (Holdings) Ltd.[2007] EWCA Civ 1329. This decision essentially copies the obiter dicta of Lord Denning MR in D & C Builders v Rees [1966] 2 QB 617 Arden LJ argued that a partner who had been assured he was only liable to repay one third of the partnership's debts, rather than be jointly and severally liable for the whole, had relied on the assurance by making repayments, and it was inequitable for the finance company to later demand full repayment of the debt. Hence, promissory estoppel could circumvent the common law rule of Foakes.

The case Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 is comparable on its commentary on reasonable foreseeability to Chapman v Hearse. The obiter dicta from Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound) [1961] AC 388 argued that a reasonable man, concerned for the safety of others would avoid the risk of putting others in harms way.Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Company Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 (18 January 1961). In relation to Chapman v Hearse, it contextualises how the appellant should have considered the implications of his actions on others and whether the end result of the appellants negligence (the death of Dr Cherry) was truly reasonably foreseeable.

Based on previous judgments as Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co, Denning J held that the full rent was payable from the time that the flats became fully occupied in mid-1945. However, he continued in an obiter statement that if Central London had tried to claim for the full rent from 1940 onwards, they would not have been able to. This was reasoned on the basis that if a party leads another party to believe that he will not enforce his strict legal rights, then the courts will prevent him from doing so at a later stage. Being obiter dicta and in a court of first instance this was doubly not a binding precedent, yet it essentially created the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

The Vellama decision has also been described as enshrining the principle of judicial independence and impartiality in Singapore by dispelling unfounded beliefs by some members of the public that the judiciary is subject to influence by the legislative and executive branches of government. It has also been said that the decision serves as a definition and recognition of the rights of Singaporeans with regards to whether a by-election must be called.. However, because Vellama's appeal was in fact dismissed for lack of standing,"Hougang By-election Judgment", pp. 12 and 14. the holding of the Court with regards to the Prime Minister's discretion in calling a by-election was obiter dicta and, strictly speaking, is not binding on other courts faced with a similar decision.

The House of Lords rejected this argument, holding both the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 to be valid. However, in obiter dicta Lord Hope argued that Parliamentary sovereignty "is no longer, if it ever was, absolute", and that the "rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based", and cannot be used to defend unconstitutional Acts (as determined by the courts).[2005] UKHL 56, [120] 'Parliamentary sovereignty is an empty principle if legislation is passed which is so absurd or so unacceptable that the populace at large refuses to recognise it as law'. There is not yet a consensus on the meaning of "Parliamentary sovereignty", except that its legitimacy depends on the principle of "the democratic process".

In a unanimous decision, the court held that the words "adult person" in section 41 were fixed with the meaning they had when the Constitution came into effect, and thus applied only to people aged over 21. Justice Stephen summed up the court's opinion: > "The ordinary legal meaning of "adult"... was, at Federation, and had for > centuries been, that of a person who had ceased to be an infant and had > attained full age by attaining the age of twenty-one years." Because the whole court decided that King was not an "adult person", and that section 41 did not apply to her, the court did not need to decide about the nature of section 41, whether it was a guarantee or a transitional provision. However, some of the judges did address the issue in obiter dicta.

362, para. 43. The principle against a public authority fettering its discretion by rigid adherence to a policy also applies to the exercise of discretionary police powers, as indicated by obiter dicta in the High Court case of Chee Soon Juan v. Public Prosecutor (2011).. Although the case did not involve judicial review and did not specifically cite Lines International, Justice Woo Bih Li discussed the validity of a general police policy in the context of judicial review, opining that the adoption of a policy "determining that political activities as a class posed a greater threat to public order than commercial activities ... was not in itself offensive for the purposes of administrative law provided that the police do not fetter their discretion and remain prepared to consider the facts of each case".Chee Soon Juan, p.

Windeyer J noted that no one could bring an action for negligence based on anything done in the course of war operations, but that members of the armed services are liable to civilians injured by negligent acts during peacetime. Because Parker was a civilian the Australian Government was liable. Windeyer J however made the following obiter dicta observation: > ... as I see the matter at present, the law does not enable a serving member > of any of Her Majesty's forces to recover damages from a fellow member > because acts done by him in the course of his duty were negligently done. Despite this case however, the Australian Government adopted a policy that when sued by a member of the military it would not challenge whether a member of the military could sue for damage caused by the negligence of another member of the military.

Negligent misstatement is not strictly part of the law of misrepresentation, but is a tort based upon the 1964 obiter dicta in Hedley Byrne v Heller Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the House of Lords found that a negligently-made statement (if relied upon) could be actionable provided a "special relationship" existed between the parties.In Hedley Byrne v Heller, the "special relationship" was between one bank who gave a financial reference to another bank. Subsequently in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon,Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] Q.B. 801 Lord Denning transported this tort into contract law, stating the rule as: ...if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another…with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable'.

The court observed that the Court of Appeal in Chng Suan Tze had allowed the appeal solely on a technical ground – that the respondents had not adduced sufficient evidence of the President's satisfaction. Other matters mentioned in that judgment were merely obiter dicta. Therefore, although it had been held in Chng Suan Tze that the President's satisfaction under section 8(1) of the ISA was objective and thus reviewable by the court, these observations did not apply to the present proceedings in the light of the new provisions in the ISA. Section 8B(1), which stated that the law governing the judicial review of any decision made or act done in pursuance of any power conferred upon the President or the Minister by the Act shall be the same as was applicable and declared in Singapore on 13 July 1971, reaffirmed the law governing judicial review as laid down in the High Court's 1971 decision Lee Mau Seng v.

Justice John McLean also dissented from the Court's decision, deeming the argument that black people could not be citizens "more a matter of taste than of law." He attacked much of the Supreme Court's decision as obiter dicta that was not legally authoritative on the ground that once the court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case, it should have simply dismissed the action, rather than passing judgment on the merits of the claims. The dissenting opinions by Curtis and McLean also attacked the Court's overturning of the Missouri Compromise on its merits. They noted that it was not necessary to decide the question and that none of the authors of the Constitution had ever objected on constitutional grounds to the Congress's adoption of the antislavery provisions of the Northwest Ordinance passed by the Continental Congress or the subsequent acts that barred slavery north of 36°30' N.

Laws LJ went on to hold that there was no question of implied repeal as there was no inconsistency between the European Communities Act and the Weights and Measures Act, since there can be no inconsistency between a provision of an Act granting a Henry VIII power and the terms of legislation adopted in application of that power. Furthermore, to say that Henry VIII clauses could only operate vis-a-vis legislation which was already in existence at the time the clause was passed would be to place a limitation on the legislative powers of Parliament and run contrary to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. Given this primary finding, the Court's observations about how the doctrine of implied repeal might or might not apply to "constitutional statutes" were obiter dicta, albeit potentially significant, given the standing of Laws as a leading public law judge. Notwithstanding that, the point has not been subject to much judicial elaboration since the Thoburn case.

In July 2004, Abdurahman Khadr was denied a Canadian passport by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson on the explicit advice of her Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Graham, who stated the decision was "in the interest of the national security of Canada and the protection of Canadian troops in Afghanistan." The government invoked Royal Prerogative in order to deny Khadr's passport, as national security was not at that time listed in the Canadian Passport Order as a ground for refusal. Shortly thereafter, on 22 September 2004, section 10.1 was added to the order, which allowed the minister to revoke or refuse a passport due to national security concerns. Khadr sought judicial review of the minister's decision to refuse his passport and, on 8 June of the following year, the Federal Court ruled that the government did not have the power to refuse to issue Khadr's passport in the absence of specific authority set out in the Canadian Passport Order, but stated in obiter dicta that if the order were to be amended, Khadr would likely not be able to challenge the revocation.

Especially it was complained, that the bride price once taken, should not be refundable if the couple should get a divorce. The Mifumi petition on bride price was decided in 2010 by the Constitutional Court of Uganda when four judges to one (with Justice Tumwesigye dissenting) upheld the constitutionality of bride price (See Constitutional Court of Uganda (2010) Mifumi (U) Ltd & 12 Others v Attorney General, Kenneth Kakuru (Constitutional Petition No.12 Of 2007) [2010] UGCC 2 (26 March 2010. This was despite finding that certain elements of the custom of bride price, such as the demand for refund, was not only unconstitutional but also criminal. However all was not lost because the case significantly advanced African jurisprudence, particularly in the views of the judges expressed obiter dicta in their judgements. More importantly, MIFUMI appealed and in 2015 the Supreme Court of Uganda ruled that the custom of bride price refund was unconstitutional and therefore outlawed (See (See Supreme Court of Uganda (2015) Mifumi (U) Ltd & Anor Vs Attorney General & Anor (Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2014) [2015] UGSC 13).

The rights citizens have by being citizens of the United States are covered under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, while the rights citizens have by being citizens of a state fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four. The Supreme Court did not prevent application of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Privileges or Immunities Clause in Slaughter-House, but rather addressed whether a state monopoly statute violated the natural right of a person to do business and engage in his trade or vocation. In other words, no provision of the Bill of Rights was at issue in that case, nor was any other right that followed under the U.S. Constitution. In obiter dicta, Justice Miller's opinion in Slaughter- House went so far as to acknowledge that the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States include at least some rights listed in the first eight amendments: "The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances...are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution".

In Binions v Evans[1972] EWCA Civ 6 when Mr and Mrs Binions bought a large property they promised the sellers that Mrs Evans could remain for life in her cottage. They subsequently tried to evict Mrs Evans, but Lord Denning MR held that their agreement had created a constructive trust, and so the property was not theirs to deal with.However in Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold [1989] Ch 1 a different Court of Appeal opined, in obiter dicta, that a third party transferee could not be bound (inconsistent with the reasoning of Lord Denning MR) unless it was express that a new property right was to be granted. Third, gifts or trusts that are made without completing all formalities will be enforced under a constructive trust if it is clear that the person making the gift or trust manifested a true intention to do so. In the leading case, Pennington v Waine[2002] 1 WLR 2075 a lady named Ada Crampton had wished to transfer 400 shares to her nephew, Harold, had filled in a share transfer form and given it to Mr Pennington, the company's auditors, and had died before Mr Pennington had registered it.