"Obiter dictum" or simply "dictum" or "dicta" is the term used to describe statements made by a court in its opinion that are unnecessary to decide the case.
When such an unnecessary statement is used to negate a party's attorney's position, that attorney will refer to it as "merely obiter dictum (or "mere dicta") which does not bind this court." When used in support of the case, it is called "supporting rationale for the court's ultimate decision deserving of great weight for its wisdom."
In the Supreme Court, the written decision and legal reasoning for a case is called an Opinion.
The opinion is the Supreme Court's decision on a case, usually accompanied by a written explanation that includes the reasoning and legal precedents used.
That the Supreme Court decision was both unnecessary and invalid.
Obiter dictum refers to remarks made by a judge in a legal opinion that are not essential to the decision of the case. These comments are considered persuasive but not binding precedent.
Rather than use the term "made legal" I would substitute "made LAWFUL." The decision was rendered by a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as "Roe vs. Wade."
Ratio decidendi sets forth the legal reasoning for the decision in a case. (Obiter dictum is a judicial opinion or incidental comment that is not legally binding.)
A decision or opinion to which most justices agree may be called a "majority decision" or "majority opinion". When a majority agreeing to a single point-of-view issues a unified written decision, the term is "opinion of the Court."
In US Supreme Court decisions, a concurring opinion is an opinion by one or more justices which agrees with the result the majority opinion reached but either for additional or other legal reasons which the majority opinion rests on. The writer of a concurring opinion is counted within the majority of justices who agreed on the ultimate result of the case, but disagrees in some way with the legal reasoning of the other justices. The concurring opinion sets forth that justice's own reasoning. In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by some of the judges of a court which agrees with the majority of the court but might arrive there in a different manner. In a concurring opinion, the author agrees with the decision of the court but normally states reasons different from those in the court opinion as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of jurists is referred to as the plurality opinion.
The majority decision in a case before the Supreme Court is called the "opinion of the Court." The opinion is preceded by a Syllabus that summarizes the case and opinion; the full opinion elaborates on the Court's reasoning and case law cited as precedents.For more information on US Supreme Court opinions, see Related Questions, below.
Yes. Many judgments are a matter of opinion (or interpretation) that must be based on -- and supported by -- the rule of law.A judge can also express his or her personal opinion (beliefs) that may be relevant to the case, but not part of the official decision. This is called "obiter dictum," or "dictum" for short. Many cases include dicta (plural), which sometimes confuses readers as to which part of the opinion is the legal decision and which part is an aside.If you're asking whether a judgment can be entirely based on personal belief without a legal basis, then no.
concurring opinion
An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court which does not have the effect of resolving a specific legal case, but advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law.