Also known as: obiter dicta · obiter · dictum
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial comment made while delivering a judicial opinion but unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential. Such a statement may still be considered persuasive in future cases. It is distinguished from the holding or ratio decidendi that supplies the binding rule.
Oriana Oberman signed a written offer to sell land to Odin Obeng before any acceptance occurred. In a later dispute over whether the offer satisfied the Statute of Frauds, the court ruled that a post-contract memorandum could cure the defect. The opinion added in passing that minutes from a corporate board meeting would also suffice if they contained the essential terms, but that remark played no role in the holding.
Olive Okafor was questioned without receiving Miranda warnings and moved to suppress her statements. The court held the statements inadmissible because the warnings were required. The opinion remarked that the same result would apply to routine traffic stops, but that observation was unnecessary to resolve the custody issue presented.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Oliver Okeke challenged a state sodomy statute after his arrest in a private residence. The court invalidated the statute as applied to consensual adult conduct. The opinion observed that the same analysis might extend to commercial establishments, yet that comment did not affect the disposition of the residential case.
Opal Okoro petitioned for review of an agency rule governing nuclear plant procedures. The court upheld the rule under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The opinion added that courts should rarely second-guess technical agency choices even outside the nuclear context, but that broader statement was not required to decide the petition.
Oswald Orozco owned property condemned by the city for an economic development plan. The court upheld the taking as serving a public purpose. The opinion noted that the public-use inquiry might reach even purely private transfers in extreme cases, but that observation was unnecessary to uphold the plan at issue.
Orbit Communications sued a tobacco manufacturer alleging failure to warn. The court held that federal labeling law preempted certain state claims. The opinion remarked that preemption might also bar design-defect claims, yet that remark did not determine the warning-based claims actually before the court.
A holding is the court's determination of law that is pivotal to the decision and therefore binding. Obiter dictum consists of comments unnecessary to that decision and carries no precedential force, though it may persuade later courts.
Supporting sources
Courts may add observations to explain the decision, limit its reach to the facts presented, or illustrate how the rule would apply in hypothetical situations. These statements arise because judges often write more broadly than the precise facts require.
Supporting sources
Although not binding, obiter dictum can be cited for its persuasive value when it offers a well-reasoned view from a respected court. Lawyers sometimes rely on it to fill gaps where no holding directly addresses the issue.
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…