On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:56 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a > judgment would, or would it be purely informational?
I'd say it shouldn't need to be a separate section at all. If the comment is unavailing, then sure, tack on an sentence at the end about why it's wrong. But if it convinces the judge to change eir reasoning, then e may want to integrate the response to the comment into a revised version of eir main arguments. So it's simplest to not legally distinguish the main judgement and responses to counterarguments, and just say that the revised judgement has to address the counterarguments. Ergo, responses to counterarguments would have the same precedential value. That said, I'd interpret the precedent system (as it exists today) as having the same concept of "obiter dicta" as in real law: if an argument made in a judgement is only marginally related to the case at hand, it should only count as weak precedent, regardless of what section of the judgement it's in.
