Talk:Legal opinion

Untitled

Note: This article was split out from opinion. Attribution information remains in that page's edit history.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aelliso4, Rallen15, Wheelek5, Kbtucker30.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re judiciary

I just added this section based on what I know with some reference to a law dictionary. However, most of my information applies only to the Court of Appeals of the State of Arizona, and I don't know whether other states are significantly different from Arizona in this regard. Hopefully someone with knowledge of law in several states can check my facts. Also, I realize that the section is very US-centric, but I'm not at all qualified to comment on other jurisdictions. Please add (if this concept even applies elsewhere). Jeeves 18:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "In judicial practice" section should specify in the section the jurisdiction that it relates to. EEye 14:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose merging the four articles on majority, concurring, dissenting, and plurality opinions into this article. All four are variations on the same theme of legal opinions. While they stand alone fine as separate articles, the current material is short enough to put everything in the same article and concentrate the coverage of these intimately similar concepts.--Chaser - T 03:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we do merge the opinions we should differentiate non-judicial opinions. Legal opinions may be rendered by a practitioner for a client regarding a particular legal issue. For example, the term 'opinion work' in patent litigation often times refer to patent claim interpretation. That is, the legal opinion may interpret whether the claims of a patent in suit infringes on the accused product. Thus, I suggest an organization with an upper level judicial and non-judicial opinion work. -- Colobikeguy 12:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would agree with Colobikeguy. Legal opinion is far too broad. Judicial opinion might be better. But I would be happier without the merger, as this would allow individual notable examples to be given. --Rumping (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditionally Support. As noted, legal opinion can apply to a number of things. In addition to legal opinions given in attorney-client relationships, most states have published opinions by various administrative heads, at the very least the attorney general. Either there should be one article that clearly subsets judicial opinions, or there should be a separate "Legal opinion (judicial)". One of the two should be done, but then the various classifications should be made into subheadings. IMHO (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slip opinion

Many courts offer slip opinions to the general public. It may be expensive, but you can actually subscribe to slip opinions. At worst, you can pay somebody just to hang around the court and wait for every single slip opinion to come out, and then manually photocopy them. In fact, that's how a lot of reporters first came into being - - as compilations of slip opinions without any editorial input, or sidebars, or headnotes.

Someone who is logged in, should write a main article on slip opinions as a special version of a legal opinion combined with a court order. 216.99.219.122 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

legal awareness

You are well come to contribute and improve article legal awareness.

Mahitgar (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]