Also known as: obiter dictum · dicta · dictum · obiter
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Remarks by a judge that are not necessary to the decision reached in the case but are offered instead as comments, illustrations, or thoughts on related points. Such remarks do not bind later courts as precedent.
Odilia Okamura signed a written offer to sell land to Otto Osman before any acceptance occurred. When a later dispute arose over enforceability, the court held the offer satisfied the statute of frauds as a memorandum. A passing comment in the opinion about how agents might sign similar documents was not needed to resolve the parties' dispute.
Octavia Okonkwo challenged a city zoning ordinance that limited household composition in her neighborhood. The court ruled the ordinance violated due process by infringing protected liberty interests in family living arrangements. A side observation about how the same ordinance might affect unrelated roommates was unnecessary to the holding.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Orion Technologies sought to publish classified documents obtained from a government source. The court held that the government failed to meet the heavy burden required to justify prior restraint. A remark suggesting how the outcome might differ if national security were more directly threatened was not required for the decision.
Outback Mining attempted to claim title to property seized during wartime hostilities. The court held that private citizens acquire no title to enemy property without sovereign authorization. An aside discussing potential liability for unauthorized seizures under international norms was not essential to the result.
Oakridge Manufacturing faced prosecution for inflammatory speech at a rally organized by its employees. The court held that the advocacy was protected unless it incited imminent lawless action. A comment on how different facts might trigger a different standard was unnecessary to the outcome.
Ophelia O'Brien sued under a federal statute after suffering gender-motivated violence. The court held that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment to create the remedy. A brief observation about potential state-law alternatives was not needed to decide the constitutional question.
The holding consists of the legal rules and principles necessary to decide the dispute before the court. Obiter dicta are judicial comments or illustrations that go beyond what is required for the decision and therefore carry no binding force in later cases.
Supporting sources
Judges sometimes add observations to clarify related issues, anticipate future questions, or provide guidance on how similar facts might be analyzed. These remarks are not essential to resolving the immediate controversy.
Supporting sources
Although not binding, obiter dicta may be cited as persuasive authority when a court confronts an issue not squarely decided in prior precedent. Later courts remain free to accept or reject the reasoning.
Supporting sources
…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…