Also known as: obiter dictum · dicta · dictum · obiter
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View caseOrion 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.
The United States brought suit against the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company seeking to enjoin publication of material from a classified government study on the history of United States decision-making regarding Vietnam policy. The newspapers had come into possession of the classified documents and had already begun publishing excerpts from the study in their respective newspapers before the government filed for injunctive relief. The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in the New York Times case that the government had not satisfied the requirements for imposing a prior restraint. In the parallel Washington Post litigation, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both determined that the government had not met its burden. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the matters on an expedited schedule. Stays had been entered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 23, 1971, and by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 24, 1971.
View caseOutback 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.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseOakridge 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.
In the period leading to his prosecution, Clarence Brandenburg, identified at trial as a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, telephoned an announcer-reporter on the staff of a Cincinnati television station and invited him to come to a Klan rally to be held at a farm in Hamilton County, Ohio. With the cooperation of the organizers, the reporter and a cameraman attended the meeting and filmed the events. Portions of the films were later broadcast on the local station and on a national network. The films showed twelve hooded figures, some carrying firearms, gathered around a large wooden cross which they burned. In one scene Brandenburg, wearing Klan regalia, delivered a speech in which he stated that the Klan had hundreds of members throughout the State of Ohio and warned that if the President, Congress, and Supreme Court continued to suppress the white Caucasian race it was possible that some revengeance would have to be taken. He announced plans to march on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong before dividing into groups to march on St. Augustine, Florida, and into Mississippi. A second film showed Brandenburg repeating a similar speech, adding that he believed the Negro should be returned to Africa and the Jew returned to Israel. Based on these films and testimony identifying Brandenburg as the speaker and the person who contacted the reporter, he was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute. He was fined one thousand dollars and sentenced to one to ten years' imprisonment. The intermediate appellate court of Ohio affirmed the conviction without opinion. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed Brandenburg's appeal sua sponte for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and heard the appeal.
View caseOphelia 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.
In September 1994 Christy Brzonkala enrolled as a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Within thirty minutes of meeting fellow students Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both members of the varsity football team, Brzonkala alleges that the two men assaulted and repeatedly raped her. Morrison allegedly told Brzonkala after the attack that she had better not have any diseases. He later announced in a dormitory dining room that he liked to get girls drunk and made other vulgar remarks about women. Brzonkala became severely emotionally disturbed and depressed after the incident. She sought assistance from a university psychiatrist who prescribed antidepressant medication. She stopped attending classes and withdrew from the university. In early 1995 she filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under the university's Sexual Assault Policy. Virginia Tech conducted a hearing under its Sexual Assault Policy and a second hearing under its Abusive Conduct Policy. The first found Morrison guilty of sexual assault and suspended him for two semesters. The second hearing again found him guilty but changed the offense description to using abusive language. University officials later set aside the punishment. In December 1995 Brzonkala sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Her complaint alleged that the attack violated 42 U.S.C. §13981, the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which creates a federal cause of action for compensatory and punitive damages against persons who commit crimes of violence motivated by gender. She also asserted Title IX claims against the university. The district court dismissed the Title IX claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed the §13981 claim on the ground that Congress lacked authority to enact the provision under either the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed in part, but the en banc Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact §13981. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the constitutionality of the civil remedy provision.
View caseThe 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.
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.
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.