Also known as: unâ voce · unanimously · with one voice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An expression denoting unanimous agreement or action without dissent. The phrase requires every participant to concur on the outcome or decision at issue.
Uliana Ustinova and her partner, who are of different races, apply for a marriage license in a state that still enforces an old ban. The state supreme court issues a single opinion striking down the statute after every justice joins without separate writings. The ruling rests on the principle that the freedom to marry a person of another race cannot be restricted by the state.
Unity Capital, a student newspaper, sues the university after its funding request is denied on viewpoint grounds. The Supreme Court issues one opinion joined by every member of the Court holding that the university cannot discriminate against religious publications when distributing student fees.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Umar Usmani owns an apartment building whose roof is occupied by a cable company's equipment without permission. The Supreme Court delivers a single opinion joined by all participating justices holding that a permanent physical occupation constitutes a per se taking regardless of the size of the space occupied.
Ulysses Ulrich, a physician, challenges a state statute criminalizing the use of contraceptives by married couples. The Supreme Court releases one opinion joined by every justice recognizing a right of privacy that protects the marital relationship from state intrusion.
Upstream Petroleum contests an environmental regulation issued by a federal agency without adequate explanation. The Supreme Court issues a unanimous opinion holding that reviewing courts must examine only the grounds the agency itself articulated at the time of the decision.
Uma Underwood purchases a cruise ticket containing a forum-selection clause printed in small type on the back. The Supreme Court delivers a single opinion joined by every justice enforcing the clause because the passenger had notice and an opportunity to reject the contract.
Federal civil juries must return unanimous verdicts unless the parties stipulate otherwise. A 10-to-2 verdict is invalid without an express, on-the-record stipulation by all parties. Mere expressions of concern do not constitute consent.
A federal civil jury must begin with at least six and no more than twelve members. Starting with only five jurors violates the structural requirement even if the parties orally agree in chambers.
Parties may stipulate to proceed with fewer than the usual number only if at least six jurors remain to render the verdict. An agreement to accept a verdict from five jurors after excusals is ineffective because it falls below the minimum size.
Seven jurors may return a verdict if the jury began with at least six and each remaining juror participated. The key requirement is that at least six jurors actually render the verdict after any proper excusals.
Jurors may be excused for good cause such as travel conflicts if the parties agree on the record and at least six jurors remain to deliberate and return a unanimous verdict. The initial panel must have satisfied the six-to-twelve range.
…Lee grabbing for something only after he has been stabbed." App. 32. The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, unanimously concluding that, although Sylvia's statement did not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it bore guarantees of trustworthiness: " [W]hen a codefendant's confession is virtually…