<DIV>Dicta has a precise definition at law: they are "statement[s] unnecessary to the determination [of the issue presented to the Court, here] whether <I>managerial</I> employees are excluded from the Act, which was the question decided in <I>Bell Aerospace . . . </I><BR><BR>N.L.R.B. v. Hendricks County Rural Elec. Membership Corp.  454 U.S. 170, 187 (1981)<BR></DIV> <DIV>Dicta can come to have near precedential weight in some circumstances:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This lengthy history--of concurring opinions, of references, and of clear explicit statements--<A class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name=SearchTerm></A><SPAN class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name="SearchTerm">means</SPAN> that the Court's statement in <A title=http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?SerialNum=1984132130&FindType=Y&AP=&RS=WLW4.06&VR=2.0&FN=_top&SV=Split&MT=Illinois target=_top><I>Berkemer,</I></A> while technically <A class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name=SearchTerm></A><SPAN class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name="SearchTerm">dicta,</SPAN> is the kind of strong <A class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name=SearchTerm></A><SPAN class=SearchTerm title=SearchTerm name="SearchTerm">dicta</SPAN> that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years.<BR>There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law. T<BR><BR>Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County  124 S.Ct. 2451, *2465 (2004)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>However I don't think that this applies in the present context. The statement in Ermerson was dictum because it wasn't nbecessary to the result.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It is true that lawyers will try to argue that dicta are law if they help the lawyer's cause (done it myself!), but if the judges are sharp and careful, they won'y buy it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>jks<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Charles Brown <cbrown@michiganlegal.org></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>From: "jared" <BR><BR>Depends on what you mean by 'dicta.' The operative meaning of 'dicta'<BR>is whatever language a lawyer wants somebody to ignore. But lawyers<BR>(and judges) routinely cite whatever language they have at their<BR>disposal, regardless of its centrality to the holding. And even 'dicta'<BR>has precedential value.<BR><BR>That said, I wouldn't consider the 5th Circuit's words in Emerson dicta<BR>even under its traditional legal meaning. The panel was presented with<BR>the specific claim on appeal that Emerson's conviction violated his<BR>individual right to keep and bear arms as provided by the 2d. In order<BR>to dispose of the appeal, they HAD to address that specific claim. They<BR>*could* have assumed, rather than decide, that the amendment protected<BR>individual rights and then upheld the conviction on the reasonableness<BR>of the regulation, but they didn't do that nor were they required to. I<BR>wouldn't consider that particular language to be dicta. The Court<BR>certainly didn't think so, by explicitly saying that they were "holding"<BR>this result.<BR><BR>--Jared<BR><BR>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/">Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!</a>