0
There is nothing presented to support the premise framed in the question.
In trial cases, it totally depends primarily on the evidence presented, and the basic strength of the case Persuasive arguments are interesting to listen to but don't necessarily sway the jury.
Added: If you are talking about a dissent in a published court opinion, you are talking about the losing side. The majority opinion is considered controlling law and must be followed by the lower courts of that jurisdiction. However, the dissenting opinion may discuss the issue and other related issues. If a related issue comes up in a later case, and you are drafting a brief on what the trial court should do, and there is no controlling law "on point" you may look to persuasive law to support your argument. Sources of persuasive law include opinions from other jurisdictions, legal treatises, dissenting opinions, and scholarly work. The term "Persuasive authority" in this context does not literally mean that it is more or less convincing than anything else, but rather refers to the deference that a court would give that authority.
What else can I help you with?
Should dissenting opinions be included in case briefs?
Dissenting opinions may be cited as persuasive authority, so a relevant dissent should be included if it strengthens your case.
The majority opinion of the court and the dissent has value as a precedent?
The majority opinion of an appellate court is the governing rule in the case. A dissent indicates why one of the judges on the court did not agree with the ruling of the majority. Dissents do not have the force of law, but they may be instructive in future cases where a similar issue is contested. When reading a case, make sure you're looking at the majority opinion and not the dissent, if you're trying to understand what the ruling of the case was and how the court arrived at it.
What does it mean when a decision in state court is persuasive in federal court?
"Persuasive precedents" are decisions that are not binding on a court hearing a similar case, but which contain compelling legal reasoning or logic that the court finds convincing (persuasive) enough to apply to the case at bar. For example, a US District Court judge may agree with a decision made in a comparable state court case, adopt the reasoning, and cite the first case in the opinion of the second case. Only appellate courts with jurisdiction over a lower court may creating binding precedents (decisions that must be followed); a court may choose to follow a non-binding precedent that doesn't conflict with a binding precedent or law. These are commonly referred to as "persuasive precedents."
How do judicial review in the majority review differ from those in the dissent?
The dissent uses the majority opinion as evidence.
When a supreme court justice disagree with majority opinion of the court they are?
dissenting.
How do you determine the precedential value of a case?
You have to look to the jurisdiction of the court which issued the opinion. If it is a court of appeals case that is in the same city as your district court case, or if it is a state supreme court or U.S. Supreme Court decision, then the case is binding authority--the judge has to consider it as the law. If the case comes from a court of appeals in a different city/county, or if it is a federal case from a different circuit, then the case is merely persuasive--the judge can use it or disregard it as he or she sees fit. Note: although I refer to a court of appeals as being in a particular city (which is how they are generally named), that court usually has authority over lower courts in surrounding towns, cities, counties, etc.
What is mean by persuasive precedent?
this is not absolutely binding on a court but may be applied for instance if there is a case with no binding authority if the judge believes they have applied the correct legal principle and reasoning.
Was Gibbons v Ogden the only case in Supreme Court history that went without a decision?
The US Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824). See Related Questions, below, for a discussion of that decision.
What is SHEPARDIZING a case?
It is checking to ascertain whether the case has been over ruled by an apeals court, or cited as prescedence by another court, or some other discussion by another court which affects its presetendial value. For example if the US supreme court were to cite a lower court case as good law, the lower court case would be elevated in stature. Conversly, if the lower case were to be distingushed away, or held not correct, it loses value. Thus shepardizing ensuresa your cases cites are still good law in your briefs.
What is a appel?
An appellate brief is a persuasive paper written on why the lower court's decision was either correct or incorrect. Appellate judges decide to uphold a case or overrule it based on these briefs.
How do judicial reviews in the majority opinion differ from those in the dissent?
The majority opinion uses lower courts' decisions on the same case as evidence
What is case-based group discussion?
As
