Define: Seriatim

Seriatim refers to a method of delivering a court’s decision where each judge writes a separate opinion, rather than a single majority opinion.

Judges may deliver seriatim opinions when they have differing views on a case, allowing each judge to express their individual reasoning and analysis.

Seriatim opinions are not binding on lower courts, as they do not represent a majority opinion of the court. However, they can still be influential and persuasive in subsequent cases.

Seriatim opinions can be appealed, just like any other court decision. However, the appeal would be based on the specific legal issues raised in the individual opinions rather than a single majority opinion.

Seriatim opinions are typically cited by referencing the individual judge’s name and their opinion, followed by the court and case details. For example, “Judge Smith, concurring opinion, Supreme Court, Case XYZ.”

While seriatim opinions do not carry the same weight as majority opinions, they can still be used as persuasive authority in future cases, especially if they provide well-reasoned arguments and analysis.

Not all courts allow seriatim opinions. Some courts have rules or practices that require a single majority opinion to be issued, ensuring a unified decision.

Seriatim opinions can be used to challenge a court’s decision if they highlight errors or inconsistencies in the majority opinion. However, it would still require a separate legal process, such as an appeal or petition for review.

Seriatim opinions are more common in cases where judges have strong differences of opinion or when complex legal issues are involved. They are often seen in appellate courts and higher-level courts.

Yes, seriatim opinions can be used to support different interpretations of the law, as they often present varying perspectives and legal analyses. However, their persuasive value may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific legal issue at hand.