Define: Ad Seriatim

Ad Seriatim is a Latin term that means “in series” or “in order.” It refers to a legal practice where judges or justices take turns writing opinions in a case, rather than issuing a single collective opinion.

In a unanimous opinion, all judges or justices agree on the outcome and reasoning of a case. In Ad Seriatim, each judge or justice writes their own opinion, which may differ in reasoning or outcome.

Yes, Ad Seriatim opinions can be binding if they receive majority support from the judges or justices involved. However, if there is no majority opinion, the decision may lack precedential value.

Ad Seriatim opinions were more common in the past, but they are now relatively rare in appellate courts. Most appellate courts prefer to issue a single majority opinion to provide a clear and unified decision.

Ad Seriatim opinions allow each judge or justice to express their individual views and reasoning, which can provide a more comprehensive analysis of the legal issues involved. It also allows for a more thorough examination of different perspectives.

One disadvantage is that Ad Seriatim opinions can lead to confusion and inconsistency in the law, as different judges may reach different conclusions. It can also make it harder for lower courts to apply the law consistently.

Yes, Ad Seriatim opinions can be used as persuasive authority in legal arguments. However, their weight may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

Ad Seriatim opinions are typically identified by the names of the judges or justices who wrote them, followed by the term “Ad Seriatim” or “Seriatim Opinion.” For example, “Smith J., Ad Seriatim Opinion.”

Ad Seriatim opinions can be appealed like any other court decision. However, the process may be more complex if there is no clear majority opinion, as the appellate court may need to determine the controlling legal reasoning.

Ad Seriatim opinions are more commonly found in complex or controversial cases where judges or justices have divergent views. They are less common in routine or straightforward cases where there is a clear consensus among the judges.