Dictum
|
|
Dictum form part of the persuasive argument for a case, but are not officially called precedent, and do not form part of the common law. This is the opposite of the ratio decedendi in a case, or the 'reason for deciding' (also known as the holding of the case). The ratio decendi forms part of the common law and is often quoted in future cases.
Where part of a previous judgment is cited as part of a legal argument, sometimes the opposing lawyer will argue that the cited text was merely dicta, in order to undermine the force of the argument. Nevertheless, judges tend to respect each other's opinions, and citation of good dicta can form a strong part of a legal argument, even though it lacks binding force.
The reasoning for using or ignoring dictum in citing precedent is controversial. Marshall investigated this question in Cohens v. Virginia:
"It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the Court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it, are considered [19 U.S. 264, 400] in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated. "
In other words, only when a particular case is at hand can the issues be fully and correctly decided.
Contrast with Obiter Dictum.