Zepp v. Brannen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “a statement in an opinion concerning some rule of law or legal proposition not necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand” is dicta
• noting that the Supreme Court is “not bound to follow ... dicta in a prior case [where] the point now at issue was not fully debated”
• “declin[ing] to give force to the dicta in [another case] because it was not necessary to resolve the issue before the Court”
• declining to give force to dicta in a prior decision “because it was not necessary to resolve the issue before the Court[.]”
• \declin[ing] to give force to the dicta in [another case] because it was not necessary to resolve the issue before the Court\
• following Cohens and disregarding broad legal principle announced in previous case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).