Per curiam decision
In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously.[1] In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision,[1] but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed.[a]
| Judicial opinions & aggregates for official decisions (O.S-Federal) |
|---|
|
Majority opinion |
Per curiams are not the only type of decision that can reflect the opinion of the court. Other types of decisions can also reflect the opinion of the entire court, such as unanimous decisions, in which the opinion of the court is expressed with an author listed.[4] The Latin term per curiam literally means "by the court".[5]
United States
changeFederal
changeThe decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are usually not per curiam.[4] Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices.[4] Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam.[4] Per curiam decisions tend to be brief in length.[4] The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion.
The notable exception to the usual characteristics for a per curiam decision is the case of Bush v. Gore. Although it was per curiam,[6] there were multiple concurrences and dissents.[7][8]
State
changeThe Supreme Court of California occasionally releases decisions in the name of "The Court". But these are not necessarily unanimous. Sometimes an opinion in the name of the Court may be accompanied by extensive concurring and dissenting opinions.[b]
Canada
changeThe Supreme Court of Canada also attributes some decisions to "The Court" but does not use the phrase per curiam. In the U.S. the term is used primarily for uncontroversial cases. In Canada, however, it has been used for important and controversial cases to emphasize that the entire Court is speaking with a single voice.[10]
Notes
changeReferences
change- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Bryan A. Garner, ed. (2001). Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group. pp. 503, 523.
- ↑ "Bobby v. Van Hook". IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ↑ "Michigan v. Fisher". IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 "Per curiam". Wex. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2008-09-10.
- ↑ "Per curiam". Merriam Webster English Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 2012-06-28.
- ↑ "Per Curiam; Supreme Court of The United States; George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners V. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.; On Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court". Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ↑ "Stevens, J., dissenting; Supreme Court of The United States; No. 00—949; George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners V. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.; On Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court". Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ↑ "Rehnquist, C. J., concurring; Supreme Court of The United States; No. 00—949; George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners V. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.; On Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court". Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ↑ "Sundance v. Municipal Court (1987)". Justia. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
- ↑ Bonnie Androkovich-Farries (2004). "Judicial Disagreement on The Supreme Court of Canada" (PDF). University of Lethbridge. Retrieved 15 March 2016., p. 9