Dissenting Opinion

Name:

Institution:

Date:

Dissenting Opinion

The independence of the court and judges guarantees the stability and effectiveness of judicial power on legal matters. The terms dissent and dissenting opinion are interchangeably used since they often accompany each other. Dissents are a simple declaration of the difference of opinion with the majority. Dissents also instruct, prod, scold or instead urge the consideration of dissenter’s point of view by the majority (Epstein, Landes, & Posner, 2011). They do not carry any precedential weight, whatsoever not considered as an authority in subsequent cases. Usually, when the appeal of the legal decision is filed to a high court, a panel of judges hears and presides over the case. The judges give their verdict based on the facts presented and subsequently vote on the outcome. The majority carries the day, and one of the members writes a formal opinion that declares the ruling of the court and the explanation behind reaching of decision. The minority may also draft their views regarding the case, more importantly, why they think the decision/ruling was not fair. It is known as a dissenting opinion. On instances where two or more judges disagree with the majority ruling, they may write one dissenting opinion or more depending on the number.

In a civil lawsuit involving Howard and his former employer, the court ruled against Howard. Howard was not satisfied by the court’s ruling, and so he decided to appeal. He held that the court unfairly treated him by disregarding vital information presented as supporting facts of his case. The state’s appellate court used a panel of three judges to review all the relevant court documents from Howard’s case. Also, the judges were to review both the appeal document and the employer’s response to the appeal.

Two judges, Monihan and Scott, admitted that the court made a mistake not allowing the presentation of Howard’s vital evidence into the trial. However, judge Bowlan disregarded the claims stating that the evidence sources could be regarded as invalid. Since the two judges, Monihan and Scott, were in favor of overturning the court’s ruling, and the issue will be up for a new trial. The majority opinion is written by judge Monihan explaining the appellate court’s decision and directs the trial court. In this case, the dissenting opinion may come from Judge Bowlan, who can provide a formal explanation as to why he disagrees with the majority opinion on the appeal.

The majority opinion may not be right always irrespective of the ruling being reached for the same reasons. In other words, it is the controlling opinion and only implies that it is the one that will be binding. In reality, not in all cases, the majority opinion will always count in supreme cases, meaning, for some reason, the decision may not be agreed upon to the court’s ruling for the same reasons. The concurring opinion helps to affirm the majority decision based on the rationale for the verdict. In summary, the dissenting opinion is essential as it serves to make sure that people and organizations receive fair treatment from the courts based on the evidence presented. Through the appeal, individuals are given a chance to obtain justice about their case rulings, which at some point they may have felt the decision was biased.

References

Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2011). Why (and when) judges dissent: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Legal Analysis, 3(1), 101-137.