A lawyer may need to argue convincingly that the part of the previous judgment that is being relied on by an opponent is not part of the reasoning process leading to judgment; that it was an ‘aside’ comment, based on a hypothetical situation (technically referred to as an obiter dictum comment). On the other hand, perhaps the only argument a

doi:10.4324/9781843145103-65

A lawyer may need to argue convincingly that the part of the previous judgment that is being relied on by an opponent is not part of the reasoning process leading to judgment; that it was an ‘aside’ comment, based on a hypothetical situation (technically referred to as an obiter dictum comment). On the other hand, perhaps the only argument a

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843145103-65

Copy DOI

Publication Date: Sep 10, 2012

#House Of Lords #Court Of Appeal + Show 8 more

Abstract
Full-Text PDF
Similar Papers

Abstract

A lawyer may need to argue convincingly that the part of the previous judgment that is being relied on by an opponent is not part of the reasoning process leading to judgment; that it was an ‘aside’ comment, based on a hypothetical situation (technically referred to as an obiter dictum comment). On the other hand, perhaps the only argument a

Full Text