What is the proper stance when the controlling authority is a dissenting opinion?

What is the proper stance when the controlling authority is a dissenting opinion?

• A. Dissent is not binding; treat with caution; it does not constitute controlling law.
• B. Dissent is binding precedent that courts must follow.
• C. Dissent always overrides the majority decision.
• D. Dissent has no persuasive value.

Answer: (A)

The main concept is that dissenting opinions are not binding. A dissent reflects a judge’s disagreement with the majority, but it does not establish controlling law. The binding authority comes from the holding of the majority opinion, which resolves the legal issue for future cases. Dissenting views can be persuasive and may influence future decisions or legislative change, but they do not compel courts to follow them. This is why other statements miss the mark: a dissent is not binding precedent, it does not override the majority, and it can carry persuasive value even though it isn’t controlling.

The main concept is that dissenting opinions are not binding. A dissent reflects a judge’s disagreement with the majority, but it does not establish controlling law. The binding authority comes from the holding of the majority opinion, which resolves the legal issue for future cases. Dissenting views can be persuasive and may influence future decisions or legislative change, but they do not compel courts to follow them. This is why other statements miss the mark: a dissent is not binding precedent, it does not override the majority, and it can carry persuasive value even though it isn’t controlling.