A simple majority of the justices is enough to render a Court opinion?

A simple majority of the justices is enough to render a?

This will render a Supreme Court opinion.

In what US court is a simple majority of the justices enough to render a Court opinion?

In the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court must have a to render a decision in a case.?

The Supreme Court must have a simple majority to render a decision in a case.

What types of opinions does the supreme court issue?

Written OpinionsThe four most common opinions:MajorityConcurringDissentingPer CuriamThe Court's Opinion (usually also the majority opinion) is synonymous with the Court's decision. The "Opinion of the Court" gives the verdict and explains the reasoning behind the decision reached. The privilege of writing the official opinion falls to the most senior justice in the majority group, or to the Chief Justice if he voted with the majority; this person may choose to write the opinion, or may assign the task to another member of the majority. If the justices who voted against the majority wish to issue a unified opinion, they simply decide amongst themselves who will write it.Individual justices may write their own opinions, usually concurring or dissenting, regardless of whether they agree with the majority. Justices may also "join" or sign any other written opinion they agree with, even if they agree with more than one point-of-view. This generally strengthens the opinion.All published opinions except Per Curiam decisions may be used as precedent in future litigation.Opinion of the Court - The official opinion, whether unanimous or by majority voteMajority opinion - Also called the "Opinion of the Court," this is the official verdict in the case that represents the vote of the majority of justicesPlurality opinion - A concurring opinion joined by more justices than the official Court opinionDissenting opinion - An opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majorityDissenting in part - An opinion written by a justice who voted with the majority on the decision, but disagrees with a portion of the reasoning in the majority opinion, which he or she explains in writingUnanimous opinion - An opinion authored by one justice, often (but not always) the Chief Justice, and signed by all justicesConcurring opinion - An opinion that agrees with the decision but may disagree with the some of the reasoning behind the Court opinion, or may elaborate on a point made or introduce further relevant informationConcurring in part - Typically an opinion written by a justice who voted against the majority, but agrees with a portion of the majority opinion, which he or she explains in writingConcurring in judgment - An opinion written by a justice who agrees with the decision, but not with the reasoning used to reach the decisionConcurring in part and dissenting in part - An opinion written by a justice who may have voted either way, but wants to explain which points are in agreement and which are in disagreement.Per Curiam opinion: The opinion is given by the full court, unsigned by the JusticesSeriatim opinion: Each justice on the Court writes his or her own, separate opinion; there is no majority opinion, only a majority verdict. This type of opinion was more common in the 18th, and parts of the 19th, centuriesThe most important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves from a given decision. The majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason altogether.Opinions written by justices not in the majority are known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision.Sometimes the court issues so many separate opinions that whichever opinion is joined by the most justices is referred to as a plurality, rather than a majority. One recent example of a decision holding a plurality opinion is that of Baez et al., v. Rees (2008), where Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito signed one opinion, and Justice Stevens wrote a separate concurring opinion, as did Justices Scalia, Breyer, and Thomas (Scalia also joined Thomas' concurrence). Justice Ginsberg wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Souter joined.There are also a number of cases where members of the majority each wrote a concurring opinion, without creating a unified majority or plurality opinion, as well as cases where the court decision was released without the signature of any justice, in an anonymous fashion. This latter form is known as a per curiam decision. Bush v. Gore (2000) is a recent example. Cases decided per curiam do not create a precedent that can be cited in future litigation.Plurality and per curiam decisions tend to create confusion as to how a federal or constitutional law is to be interpreted.

When writing an opinion of the court does the justice have to address all of the errors claimed by the defense?

No. The justices only address as much as necessary to render a decision, but they will typically acknowledge the other issues by commenting that the opinion does not reach the questions (or errors) that fall outside the scope of their decision.

The Supreme Court must have a to render a decision in a case?

The Supreme Court must have a simple majority to render a decision in a case.

When the charge does not match the statute entered on the arrest affidavit can it be dismissed in a third degree felony?

Not enough particulars are known about the situation to render an informed opinion. Refer the question to your defense attorney.

Would you go to jail if you broke someone's jaw?

An assault that resulted in that type of injury COULD possibly mean some jail time for the perpetrator, but not enough is known about either the incident or the perpetrator's history to render an opinion.

A simple majority of the justices is enough to render a Court opinion?

Add your answer: