Per curiam decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling handed down by a court with multiple judges in which the decision was made by the court acting as a whole, as opposed to statements made by individual judges. The literal meaning of this legal term is "by the court".

Most decisions on the merits by the Supreme Court (and other appellate courts in the U.S.) take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices (and joined in by others). Even when such signed opinions are unanimous, they are not termed "per curiam." "Per curiam" decisions are given that label by the Court itself and tend to be short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively non-controversial.

See, for example, Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 (1995) and Kimberlin v. Quinlin, 515 U.S. 321 (1995). However, per curiam opinions are not necessarily unanimous and sometimes are accompanied by dissenting opinions. E.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

The top appellate courts of most states (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina) use the same terminology.

[edit] Examples

Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792)
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)--while uncontroversial at the time, Quirin became a rallying cry for defenders of civil liberties afterward
Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952) (per curiam).
Wersba v. Seiler, 393 F.2d 937 (3d Cir. 1968) (per curiam).
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (per curiam)
Anthony Ash et. al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. ____(2006)
Synar v. United States