18286Mere Dicta? How the S.Ct. Responded...
- Mar 1, 2011
Some of the expressions in the opinion in that case were criticised in the subsequent case of United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 244, and also in In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 487, 13*13 488, where the objectionable expressions were examined and held to have been mere dicta. It has not been overruled, however, but, on the contrary, it has been cited with approval and relied upon as authority in a number of subsequent cases; and the underlying principles of it are regarded as sound. Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 US 1, 12-13 (1891).
What should be done is the “mere dicta” phrases should be searched out to see whether they were cited with approval in other cases as the underlying principles being sound. It would seem this should be done before the “mere dicta” issue is raised if you are pro se/pro per. Bear
Phone Contact: 720-675-7230
Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST
Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com
www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net
www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:
firstname.lastname@example.org to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group