Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Obiter dictum" in English language version.
Simply labeling a statement in an opinion as a 'holding' does not necessarily make it so. Gratuitous statements in an opinion that do not implicate the adjudicative facts of the case's specific holding do not have the bite of precedent. They bind neither coordinate nor inferior courts in the judicial hierarchy. They are classic obiter dicta: 'statement[s] of law in the opinion which could not logically be a major premise of the selected facts of the decision.'
To be sure, Supreme Court dicta, even while nonbinding, are still highly persuasive.(plurality opinion)
Indeed, the formulation took flight from a case in which we mistakenly suggested that a claim-processing rule was 'mandatory and jurisdictional.'
We have previously recognized that 'dicta from the Supreme Court is not something to be lightly cast aside.'
Well-reasoned dicta is the law of the circuit.
