Also known as: dicta · dictums · obiter dictum · obiter dicta
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial statement in an opinion that addresses a legal issue not presented by the facts of the case before the court. Such a statement receives no binding effect in later disputes even though it may carry persuasive weight.
Dakota Industries sent a signed letter proposing terms for a supply deal with Dawson Steel. The parties later formed an oral contract on those terms. When Dawson Steel later refused to perform, the court held that the letter satisfied the statute of frauds. In the course of the opinion the court remarked that minutes from a directors meeting could also serve as a memorandum if they contained an offer later accepted orally.
Dorothy Daniels challenged a state statute restricting access to abortion services. The court struck down the statute on privacy grounds. While resolving the case the court commented on how the same statute might fare under an equal-protection theory if different facts were presented.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
David Dawson sued federal agents for an unlawful search of his home. The court recognized an implied damages action under the Constitution. In the opinion the court discussed whether suppression of evidence would be the sole remedy in a later criminal prosecution arising from the same search.
Derek Douglas, a private citizen, sued a newspaper for publishing false statements about his business practices. The court applied actual-malice review because Douglas had thrust himself into a public controversy. The opinion also speculated about whether the same standard would protect criticism of a purely private figure.
Devon Drake challenged a zoning ordinance that limited occupancy to nuclear families. The court held the ordinance violated substantive due process. The opinion added that the result might differ if the ordinance had been drafted to protect only health and safety rather than family composition.
Dominion Capital challenged an agency rule on nuclear-waste disposal. The court upheld the rule under the governing statute. The opinion noted in passing that a different outcome could follow if the agency had failed to consider an obvious alternative policy.
No. A dictum is not necessary to the resolution of the case and therefore carries no binding precedential force even though it may persuade later courts.
Identify the legal issue actually presented by the facts and the rule the court applied to decide that issue. Any discussion of a different issue or hypothetical facts is dictum.
Not by itself. A later court may adopt the reasoning of an earlier dictum and turn it into a holding, but the original statement remains non-binding until that occurs.
Courts sometimes use dicta to explain the limits of the holding, to provide guidance for future cases, or to develop legal doctrine beyond the immediate dispute.
…established as a common-law crime.[^maj-26] This is of some importance because while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law,[^maj-27] others followed Coke in stating that abortion of a quick fetus was a "misprision," a term…