Also known as: pluralities · plurality opinion · plurality vote
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A voting standard under which the candidate or slate receiving the greatest number of votes wins an election. The standard applies at a meeting where a quorum is present unless the articles of incorporation establish a different threshold.
A voting standard under which the candidate or slate receiving the greatest number of votes wins an election. The standard applies at a meeting where a quorum is present unless the articles of incorporation establish a different threshold.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The opinion that receives the most votes among the justices when no single opinion commands a majority of the Court.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The opinion that receives the most votes among the justices when no single opinion commands a majority of the Court.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Phoenix Technologies held its annual meeting with a quorum present to elect directors. The articles and bylaws contained no special voting rules. The incumbent nominees received more votes than any competing candidates even though they fell short of a majority of outstanding shares. The incumbents took their seats under the default rule.
Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at a meeting where a quorum is present. The candidates who receive more votes than any competitors win even if they obtain less than a majority of votes cast or of outstanding shares.
Supporting sources
No. Cumulative voting exists only when the articles expressly grant it or use words of similar import. Absent such language the default straight-voting plurality rule applies.
Supporting sources
Either the meeting notice or proxy statement must conspicuously state that cumulative voting is authorized, or a shareholder must give the corporation at least forty-eight hours' written notice of intent to cumulate. Timely notice by one shareholder entitles the entire voting group to cumulate.
Supporting sources
At Victor Lang's trial the prosecution called Dr. Elena Rivera to compare mass spectrometry data from a foreign lab with state database profiles. Rivera had not performed the foreign testing yet formed her own opinion from the data. The court admitted the testimony after concluding the underlying profile was not offered for its truth.
A Malaysian manufacturer moved to dismiss an indemnity claim brought by a Canadian distributor in a Midwestern state court. The court examined the manufacturer's contacts and concluded that stream-of-commerce awareness alone did not support jurisdiction when fairness factors weighed against it.
A city condemned neighborhood property for transfer to an automobile manufacturer. Property owners challenged the taking as lacking public use. The court upheld the condemnation after finding the legislative determination of public purpose was not palpably arbitrary.
Federal agents searched a residence without a warrant and arrested the occupant. The occupant later sued the agents for damages arising from the unconstitutional search. The court held that a private right of action existed directly under the Fourth Amendment.
A nonprofit corporation produced a film critical of a political candidate and sought to air it within the election blackout period. The government blocked distribution under campaign finance restrictions. The court held that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech regardless of the speaker's identity.
A plurality approach permits the expert to rely on the report when it is not admitted for its truth but only to explain the basis of the expert's independent opinion and when the report was not prepared primarily to accuse a targeted individual.
Supporting sources
A plurality opinion receives the most votes among the justices but falls short of five. It announces the judgment yet lacks the binding precedential force of an opinion joined by a majority of the Court.
Supporting sources
…that an “obliga[tio]n arise[s]” to respond there to suit); J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro , 564 U. S. , (2011) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 5) (same principle for general jurisdiction). The majority’s focus on the extent of a corporate defendant’s out-of-forum contacts is untethered from this rationale. After…