
	Where results make sense

Topic: Dissenting opinion

Related Topics

political dissent

Dissent Magazine

American popular opinion of war on Iraq

Scientific opinion on climate change

public opinion poll

scientific opinion of global warming

opinion leadership

Revising opinions in statistics

advisory opinions

World opinion

political opinion

right opinion

In the News (Wed 15 Feb 12)

EXECUTIVE POWER

Iran

ANALYSIS

Pakistan

Family compact

	Boston.com / News / Local / Mass. / Excerpts: The dissenting views
		Dissenting opinion of Justice Francis X. Spina: What is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individual rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts.
		Reduced to its essence, the court's opinion concludes that, because same-sex couples are now raising children, and withholding the benefits of civil marriage from their union makes it harder for them to raise those children, the State must therefore provide the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex couples.
		Conspicuously absent from the court's opinion today is any acknowledgment that the attempts at scientific study of the ramifications of raising children in same-sex couple households are themselves in their infancy and have so far produced inconclusive and conflicting results.
	www.boston.com /news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/19/excerpts_the_dissenting_views (927 words)

	Justice Anthony Scalia -- Justice Scalia's Dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
		One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14.
		Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.
	www.orthodoxytoday.org /articles2/ScaliaLawrenceDissent.shtml (4885 words)

	Gay & Lesbian Marriage Decision: Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Feb. 3, 2004 Letter To Senate
		If, as the separate opinion posits, the proponents of the bill believe that no message is conveyed by eschewing the word "marriage" and replacing it with "civil union" for same-sex "spouses," we doubt that the attempt to circumvent the court's decision in Goodridge would be so purposeful.
		Health, ante 309, 361 (2003) (Sosman, J., dissenting), and reduced to its legal essence, the court's Goodridge decision held that "[l]imiting the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the basic premises of individual liberty and equality under law protected by the Massachusetts Constitution." Goodridge v.
		The separate opinion fails to appreciate that it is not the word "union" that incorporates a pejorative value judgment, but the distinction between the words "marriage" and "union." If, as the separate opinion suggests, the Legislature were to jettison the term "marriage" altogether, it might well be rational and permissible.
	news.findlaw.com /hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html (6373 words)

	Dissenting Opinion by Albright, J., SER Allstate Insurance v. Madden, Judge, No. 31392 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Through its opinion, the majority seeks to guarantee that counsel for the plaintiff in substantially every bad-faith insurance action may embark on a fishing expedition during the discovery phase calculated to invade the oldest of all common-law privileges - the attorney-client privilege.
		While advisory opinions and rulings are never the preferred method of establishing law, utilizing an extraordinary proceeding for the purpose of adopting new law, especially when the legal basis for such law was not presented in the case at bar, compounds the error.
		In finding an opinion letter written by counsel for the insurer non-discoverable under the attorney-client privilege, the Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that the document was privileged “in the absence of any evidence indicating the contemplation of a tortious act on behalf of [the insurance company.]” Guaranty Nat'l Ins.
	www.state.wv.us /wvsca/docs/spring04/31392d.htm (3635 words)

	Famous quotes with dissenting opinion - ThinkExist quotations
		If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
		Entering an assembly of philosophers who were debating the matter, he cast a severed human head at the feet of his opponents and asked them to determine its zenith, explaining that its body was hanging by the heels outside.
		Observing that it was the head of their leader, the Horizontalists hastened to profess themselves converted to whatever opinion the Crown might be pleased to hold, and Horizontalism took its place among _fides defuncti_.
	en.thinkexist.com /quotes/with/keyword/dissenting_opinion (340 words)

	Understanding Basic Legal Research - Cowling Investigations, Inc.
		The majority opinion is how the majority of the justices voted and the logic, reasoning and case law (similar rulings of previous courts) that they used to reach that decision.
		The dissenting opinion is the reasoning of the justices who did not agree with the majority and why they believed the final decision was unjust.
		The arguments in the dissenting opinion are given by the justices in hopes that next time a similar case comes before the court, those arguments will be used and expanded to help overturn the prior case.
	www.allencowling.com /research.htm (753 words)

	Copyright's Commons (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		That is certainly not inconsistent with the Court's opinion: A work in the public domain is, by definition, without a copyright; where the grant of a copyright is at issue, so too is the work's eligibility for copyright, and thus the requirement of originality comes into play.
		Our dissenting colleague nonetheless adopts the narrow view of Schnapper urged by an amicus, although that argument is rejected by the actual parties to this case and therefore is not properly before us.
		Therefore, it is immaterial that the prior opinion is, in my view, erroneous in styling the granting clause of the sentence as merely introductory when in fact it is the definition of the power bestowed by that clause.
	cyber.law.harvard.edu /cc/dcaopinion.html (5302 words)

	From Revolution to Reconstruction: Documents: DredScott-case, Justice McLean dissenting
		There was some contrariety of opinion among the judges on certain points ruled in Prigg's case, but there was none in regard to the great principle, that slavery is limited to the range of the laws under which it is sanctioned.
		As my opinion rests on the third section, these remarks are made as an intimation that the power to establish a temporary Government may arise, also, on the other two grounds stated in the opinion of the court in the insurance case, without weakening the third section.
		It cannot be improper to state the grounds of the opinion of the court, and of the dissent.
	odur.let.rug.nl /%7Eusa/D/1851-1875/dredscott/dred10.htm (12187 words)

	Dissenting Opinion
		Excerpts from William H. Rehnquist's dissenting opinion for Roe v.
		Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her lawsuit.
		My understanding of past practice is that a statute found to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply "struck down" but is, instead, declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court.
	www.msu.edu /~rabercar/atl/dissenting.html (671 words)

	Order and Dissenting Opinion in Covad v. BellSouth, 11th Cir., 12/20/2002. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Not long after Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, government regulators sought to deal with the public policy issues inherent in a service that was both considered to be a natural monopoly (due to the economies of scale and network effects of local telephony) and essential for the day-to-day functioning of the American public.
		In part II of this opinion, I explain why the duty Covad seeks to impose — namely, the duty to help one’s competitor — is required by the 1996 Act but not the antitrust laws.
		That case was wrong because it failed to grasp a fundamental point: to the extent that the essential facilities doctrine is viable at all, it is a doctrine concerned with vertical foreclosure.
	www.techlawjournal.com /telecom/20021220.asp (3387 words)

	Dissenting Opinion by Maynard, J., State of WV ex rel. WV Citizens Action v. WV Economic Development Grant Comm., No. ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Dissenting Opinion by Maynard, J., State of WV ex rel.
		It is undeniable that the procedure for the appointment of grant committee members easily could have been drafted to better ensure the separation of legislative and executive powers as well as the Governor's unfettered use of his appointment power.
		Unfortunately, the majority opinion utilizes a hyper-technical analysis to reach a decision which simply is not legally inescapable.
	www.state.wv.us /wvsca/docs/spring03/31125d.htm (989 words)

	Dissenting Opinion by McGraw, J., SER Allstate Insurance v. Madden, Judge, No. 31392 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Dissenting Opinion by McGraw, J., SER Allstate Insurance v.
		I dissent from the majority because I believe the trial court fairly afforded Allstate the opportunity to prove that the requested documents and testimony are protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine and further, correctly determined that the repeated assertions by Allstate's counsel that the privileges applied, without more, were not legally sufficient.
		As the trial court concluded, Allstate failed (or, more accurately, refused) to demonstrate that the information the plaintiff requested with respect to Allstate's position on the critical issue of “stacking” involved legal advice, was intended to be confidential, and thus, was meant to be privileged.
	www.state.wv.us /wvsca/docs/spring04/31392d2.htm (177 words)

	LawKT.com: Law Firm Publications on Dissenting Opinion
		The Supreme Court, adopting the dissenting opinion of a Court of Appeals Judge McCollough, held that the trial court’s grant of directed verdict was proper, even in light of the fact that the defendant had the burden of proof on the contributory negligence issue.
		A strongly worded dissenting opinion chastised the majority opinion, noting that the plaintiff's "attackers may have targeted him for sexual pleasure, as an outlet for rage, as a means of affirming their own heterosexuality, or any combination of a myriad of factors, the determination of which falls far beyond the competence of any court.
		The Ragsdale Dissent Justice O Connor joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer issued a dissenting opinion based on their belief that the Secretary of Labor was justified in requiring individualized notice to employees and in imposing a remedy which extends the period of leave in the event an employer violated the regulation.
	www.lawkt.com /pubs/Dissenting_Opinion.html (11472 words)

	Dissenting Opinion - Proposed Children's Workgroup Reinterpretation of Fed Regs 45 CFR 46 sects. 404 & 406
		Dissenting Opinion - Proposed Children's Workgroup Reinterpretation of Fed Regs 45 CFR 46 sects.
		AHRP is a national network of lay people and professionals dedicated to advancing responsible and ethical medical research practices, to ensure that the human rights, dignity and welfare of human subjects are protected, and to minimize the risks associated with such endeavors.
		I therefore sought the opinion of several physicians and ethicists (outside the parochial perspective of the workgroup).
	www.ahrp.org /children/NHRPACdissent051402.php (4537 words)

	Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay Marriage
		The Goodridge opinion employed repeated analogies to cases involving fundamental rights and suspect classifications, while ostensibly not adopting either predicate for strict scrutiny.
		Today's answer to the Senate's question discards the fig leaf of the rational basis test and, relying exclusively on the rhetoric rather than the purported reasoning of Goodridge, assumes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution as if sexual orientation were indeed a suspect classification.
		Justice Spina agrees with the opinion of Justice Sosman.
	www.boston.com /news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404_dissenting (3497 words)

	Synod of the Covenant (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Two Dissenting Opinions were attached to the Decision by members of the Permanent Judicial Commission.
		Dissenting opinion of John Becker, Ross Jackson, Ken Hook and Richard Shipley as to the Specification of Error One.
		The dissent agrees with the Appellee’s brief (page 3, line 24) that the Appellant’s “argument” is actually not with the Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission’s assumed interpretation of the Constitution: it is with the General Assembly’s interpretation of the will of God.
	www.synodofthecovenant.org /SynodSite/articles/050304-PJCDecision.htm (2220 words)

	CFP96@MIT -- Before the court: dissenting opinion (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		This opinion does not mean to imply a reasonable expectation of privacy exists only where electronic information has been encrypted.
		Not every warrant issued under its guise would be assured of the same high standards of particularity, and the push would be to expand the scope of the warrant in the instances where the combination of a long-standing key and the requirements for a warrant intersect.
		In addition to the unconstitutionality of the statute for the other reasons outlined in this opinion, the statute is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment in the process it establishes to retrieve the encrypted information, and also in that it requires the forfeit of an encryption key prior to the establishment of probable cause.
	www-swiss.ai.mit.edu /projects/mac/cfp96/plenary-court-dissent.html (2839 words)

	DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY
		The main purpose of this Opinion is to show that, not generally but always, the threat or useä of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law and, in particular, to the principles and rules of humanitarian law.
		The ensuing portions of this Opinion are devoted to an examination of the present state of development of the principles of humanitarian law.
		In rendering an Advisory Opinion on a matter of humanitarian law concerning the permissibility ofä the use of force to a degree capable of destroying all of humanity, it would be a grave omission indeed to neglect the humanitarian perspectives available from this major segment of the world's cultural traditions(79).
	www.cornnet.nl /~akmalten/uweerama.html (19549 words)

	NORFOLK & WESTERN R.&NBSP;CO. V. AYERS
		That is because, given ordinary background risks, the increment in a person’s fear of cancer due to diagnosis of a condition such as asbestosis seems virtually impossible to evaluate.
		The evidence (viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor) indicates that, for a nonsmoker, a diagnosis of asbestosis may increase the perceived risk of dying of cancer from something like the ordinary background risk of about 22% (about two chances in nine) to about one chance in three.
		The kind of fear at issue here–a “brooding, contemplative fear,” ante, at 7 (opinion of Kennedy, J.), brought about by knowledge of exposure to a substance, or of a present condition, correlated with an elevated cancer risk–is associated quite generally with negligent exposure to toxic substances.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/01-963.ZX1.html (1656 words)

	Judge William's Dissenting Opinion
		WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I agree with the majority that the "plea wiring" was not an unlawful coercion of Pollard's guilty plea and that Chief Judge Robinson did not abuse his discretion in refusing to recuse himself or to conduct a hearing into the claim of ex parte contacts.
		But because the government's breach of the plea agreement was a fundamental miscarriage of justice requiring relief under [federal law], I dissent.
		But if the limit meant anything, it could not allow the government to wrap the raw facts in an inflammatory rhetoric, endlessly alluding to its (necessarily subjective) opinions that Pollard was greedy and immoral, depicting his conduct as the apogee of espionage, naming him a traitor, and delivering a tirade on his "arrogance and deceit."
	www.jonathanpollard.org /1992/030292.htm (1364 words)

	Dissenting Opinion by C. J. Davis, Davis v. Wallace, et al., No. 29966 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-05)
		Consequently, it superficially seems that the majority opinion was correct in determining that a good faith basis existed for the filing of the lawsuit against the experts.
		In addition, the James opinion referred to a statute that permitted the plaintiff's lawsuit, holding that “[t]he plain implication of [the statute] is that persons acting in bad faith, unreasonably, and negligently in connection with mental health proceedings are not free from liability.” Id.
		A per curiam opinion that appears to deviate from generally accepted rules of law is not binding on the circuit courts, and should be relied upon only with great caution.
	www.state.wv.us /wvsca/docs/Spring02/29966d.htm (4364 words)

	State v. Rabago (Dissenting Opinion by J. Nakayama, with whom C. J. Moon joins)
		The holding in the majority opinion suggests that, for purposes of HRS § 707-733.5, multiple acts of sexual penetration or sexual contact "are, by nature, separate and discrete, and, therefore, may not form the basis of a 'continuing offense.'" Majority at 32-33.
		As such, the majority held that, where evidence of multiple culpable acts are subsumed within a single count charging sexual assault, the defendant is entitled to either an election by the prosecution of the single act upon which it is relying upon for a conviction or a specific unanimity instruction.
		The majority's opinion disregards the legislature's clear intent in enacting HRS § 707-733.5 by insisting that, notwithstanding the legislature's expression that a continuous sexual assault of a minor is a continuing offense, "an offense is truly 'continuing' if its attributes are capable of making it so." Majority at 33 n.
	www.hawaii.gov /jud/25378dis.htm (4620 words)

	Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)
		The following is the dissenting opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy in the case of Tomoyuki Yamashita, the Japanese commanding general in charge of the Philippines, who was tried and convicted by a U.S. military tribunal for war crimes committed by troops under his command and ultimately executed.
		For the complete U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Yamashita case, including the main opinion and dissenting opinions, see: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/tribunals/docs/yamvsty.pdf.
		In my opinion, such a procedure is unworthy of the traditions of our people or of the immense sacrifices that they have made to advance the common ideals of mankind.
	www.fff.org /comment/com0405c.asp (4477 words)

	[No title]
		It is also true that the publisher of one of the copyrighted works in question here (Public Opinion, by Walter Lippmann) would have turned down a request for permission to copy the 45-page excerpt that the defendants included in a coursepack prepared to the specifications of Professor Donald Kinder.
		As to the degree to which the challenged use has transformed the original copyrighted work, which is another element in the first statutory factor, the majority opinion finds the transformative aspect of the coursepacks to be "slight." I agree.
		The majority opinion attaches considerable weight to the assertions of numerous academic authors that they do not write primarily for money(1) and that they want their published writings to be freely copyable.
	www.library.yale.edu /~okerson/dissenting.html (2406 words)

	State v. Savitz (Dissenting Opinion of J. Acoba, with whom J. Levinson joins)
		It is said in part, that the court did not abuse its discretion because of "the absence of strong mitigating circumstances favoring probation," majority opinion at 2, and that Defendant's request for probation based on "his old age and poor health" "d[id] not mandate a probationary sentence." Id.
		But there is no indication that the court applied the "strong mitigating circumstance" standard, nor can it be assumed that it did, inasmuch as this decision had not been rendered.
		I must also disagree that the trial court's statements at sentencing were a mere "overemphas[is of] the importance of drug treatment in qualifying for probation[.]" Majority opinion at 10.
	www.state.hi.us /jud/23153dis.htm (1971 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)