A candidate who obtains a majority of votes may also obtain a majority of votes, but only if he receives a greater number of votes than all the other candidates combined. Mathematically, a majority candidate has a majority if he obtains more than half of the total number of votes cast. If candidate John Doe has a majority, he has received more votes than any other candidate, but his majority depends on the number of votes he has won. A majority opinion, in some jurisdictions, is the opinion of one or more judges or judges of an appellate court who provides the reasoning for deciding an appeal when no single opinion has been supported by a majority of the court. The majority opinion received no support from more than half of the judges, but even more support than any other opinion, with the exception of judges who deviated from the court`s jurisprudence. A majority opinion is the dominant opinion when there is no majority opinion composed of the majority of the majority. It is drafted when only a majority of the majority of judges agree on the reasoning for the decision. For example, seven judges of a twelve-member tribunal believe that the plaintiff should win a particular case, but only four of them agree on the reasons for that decision. In law, “expert opinion” primarily refers to a judicial opinion, which is the written statement of a court explaining the court`s decision in the case. The notice usually contains the following elements: name of the judge who wrote the opinion, statement of facts, related legal issues, reasoning and position of the court, and dicta. This requires the lower courts to consider all opinions to determine which one is narrower in relation to the others. This opinion is called the dominant opinion and can be a simple agreement, not a plurality.
[2] PLURALITY, government. The highest number of votes cast in an election; That is different from a majority, which is a majority of all the votes that could have been given; Although in everyday language, the majority is used in the sense given here to plurality. Abogado.com The Spanish consumer legal website #1 The FindLaw Legal Dictionary – free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries. Instead, we have a majority opinion. Justices A-D wrote the majority opinion because they wrote the opinion of the majority of the judges favouring the applicant. Justice I wrote a concordant opinion in which she agreed with plurality, but for a different reason. But what if the majority of judges cannot agree on the reasoning for deciding which party should win? The result is a majority opinion.
At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. Appellate bodies consist of three or more judges. In some cases, judges disagree on the outcome of the case to such an extent that a majority opinion cannot be reached. (A majority opinion is one where the number of judges who join is greater than the number of judges who do not.) In order to resolve these disagreements and make a final decision, two or more judges issue opinions called concurring opinions, and the other judges decide which of these concurring opinions they approve. A concurring opinion, with which more judges agree than any other, is called a majority opinion. Majority decisions may reflect a disagreement between judges on a point of law in a case or reveal deeper ideological differences between court members. A majority opinion is an appellate opinion without enough votes of the judges to form the majority of the court. The majority opinion is the opinion that received the highest number of votes of all the opinions submitted. To understand a pluralistic opinion or a plurality decision, remember that in a plurality, a person receives the most votes, but not the majority of votes (more than half). FindLaw.com Free and reliable legal information for consumers and legal professionals A good example of a majority opinion can be found in the Supreme Court`s decision in Crawford v.
Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In determining whether Indiana`s voter identification law was constitutional, three justices found that the correct analysis was to examine Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983). Three other judges agreed with the result of the Anderson approach, but believed that the correct analysis was to establish the rule in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 USA 428 (1992), which “forged Anderson`s amorphous `flexible norm` into something resembling an administrable rule.” Whichever approach is chosen, a joint reading of the opinions leads to the conclusion that “neutral and non-discriminatory regulation of the voting procedure” is constitutional, provided that the burden imposed by the regulation is minimal or non-severe. Are you a lawyer? Visit our professional website » Since a majority cannot agree on a common opinion, a majority opinion is not binding. It has precedential value with respect to judgment. However, the reasoning may be invoked in subsequent cases, but does not have the same precedential effect as an opinion drawn up by a majority of the Court of Justice. LawInfo.com National Directory of Law Societies and Legal Resources for Consumers The term plurality is also used to describe the outcome of an election involving more than two candidates.
The candidate who received the most votes should have received the majority of votes. In contrast, the term majority is used to describe the outcome of an election with only two candidates; The winner should have received a majority of the votes. Copyright © 2022, Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. The party appealing (in this case, the government) is called a complainant or plaintiff. The defendant (in this case, Alvarez) is referred to as the appellant or defendant. Each party submits written arguments, called oral arguments, to the Court of Appeal. Other persons interested in the matter may request leave to file an amicus curia (friend of the court) brief. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has nine judges, and usually all nine of them participate in the disposition of cases. As shown in the video below, appellate judges in the US sit on a panel – meaning more than one judge presides. Unlike trial courts, where there is only one judge, there are usually at least three judges at the appellate level.
The excess of the votes cast for one candidate over the votes cast for another candidate. A lively and courteous discussion is the hallmark of Law Day, which is celebrated annually on May 1 and throughout the month of May. Let us assume that the Supreme Court has to decide a case between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-appellant. Four judges are of the opinion that the plaintiff should win. We refer to these judges as Justice A, Justice B, Judge C and Judge D. The four judges also agree on why the plaintiff should win. Justices A-D write an opinion explaining why the plaintiff should prevail. Source: Merriam-Webster`s Dictionary of Law ©, 1996. Licensed with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Now the plaintiff and the 4-4 defendant are equal. There is no majority. The scoring rule raised the following schools of thought regarding the appropriate basis for determining participation in such fragmented cases: (a) the closest analysis essential to the result resulting from a combination of all concurring opinions,[3] (b) the concurring opinion providing the narrowest reasoning,[4] or (c) only those parts of the concurring opinions, that overlap and reach the same conclusion.