Legal Definitions - seriatim opinions

A seriatim opinion refers to a historical practice in courts where each judge on a multi-judge panel writes and delivers their own individual opinion in a case, rather than the court issuing a single, unified opinion that represents the majority view. In this approach, there isn't one "majority opinion" that all or most judges sign onto. Instead, each judge expresses their personal legal reasoning, analysis, and conclusion separately, even if they ultimately agree on the final outcome of the case. This practice was common in early English courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in its formative years, but has largely been replaced by the modern system where courts typically issue a single majority opinion, often accompanied by separate concurring or dissenting opinions when judges disagree with the reasoning or outcome.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Early U.S. Supreme Court Practice: Imagine a landmark case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 18th century, shortly after its establishment. Instead of one justice writing a single opinion for the entire court, as is common today, each of the five justices individually penned their own detailed legal reasoning and conclusions, which were then all published as part of the case record. There was no single "Court opinion" in the modern sense; rather, there were five distinct judicial perspectives on the same case.

  This illustrates seriatim opinions because every justice presented their personal legal analysis separately, even if they ultimately agreed on the final judgment. Each judge's full, independent written statement constituted their individual opinion.

• Specialized International Tribunal: Consider a hypothetical international arbitration panel, composed of three arbitrators from different legal traditions, tasked with resolving a complex commercial dispute between two multinational corporations. Due to the highly technical nature of the evidence and the diverse legal backgrounds of the arbitrators, they decide that instead of trying to synthesize one joint award, each arbitrator will write their own detailed reasoning, findings of fact, and legal conclusions, which are then compiled into the final decision document.

  This demonstrates seriatim opinions because each member of the decision-making body independently articulates their full rationale and conclusion, rather than collaborating on a single, unified statement of the panel's reasoning. Each arbitrator's written contribution is a distinct opinion.

• Historical English Court: In 17th-century England, when a significant legal question came before the King's Bench, it was common for each of the presiding judges to deliver their own oral opinion, which would then be recorded. For instance, in a case concerning property rights, Lord Chief Justice Hale and his fellow justices might each stand and present their individual interpretations of the common law and their reasons for their decision, one after another, before the final judgment was pronounced.

  This scenario exemplifies seriatim opinions because each judge independently articulated their complete legal analysis and conclusion, contributing their personal judicial perspective rather than a single, consolidated statement from the court as a whole.