附帶意見

附帶意見（拉丁語單數：Obiter dictum，拉丁語複數 obiter dicta），又稱判詞旁論，指法官或仲裁員在判決書中不具拘束力，「附帶」的論述。

附帶意見的概念源自英國普通法，將判決書分為具有約束力的「判決理由」（ratio decidenti）以及不具約束力（但具有說服力）的附帶意見^[1]^[2]。

Obiter dicta 拉丁語的字面意思是「說的其他內容」^[3]。英語中根據地區不同，通常簡稱為 obiter 或 dicta。

意義

司法判決書的內容只有在涉及案件的關鍵事實和法律時，才能成為判決理由。不重要的、涉及假設性事實的、或涉及不相關法律問題的論述，則是附帶意見。

附帶意見雖然出現在判決書中，是法官的意見，但不構成法院判決的必要部分，例如「用以說明、類比或論證」的內容^[3]。美國法學家Wambaugh提出的倒置測試 (Wambaugh's Inversion Test) 規定，要確定判決書的一部分是判決理由還是附帶意見，應該將內容倒置。也就是說，如果該部分被省略，決定是否會有所不同。如果會不同，則該部分不可或缺，是判決理由；反之則是附帶意見。

參考內容

^ United States v. Warren, 338 F.3d 258. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 7, 2003 [2022-02-02]. （原始內容存檔於2021-09-27）. 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.'
^ United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 6, 2010 [2022-02-02]. （原始內容存檔於2021-11-02）. To be sure, Supreme Court dicta, even while nonbinding, are still highly persuasive. (plurality opinion)
^ ^3.0 ^3.1 Black's Law Dictionary, p. 967 (5th ed. 1979).

[Warren-1] United States v. Warren, 338 F.3d 258. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 7, 2003 [2022-02-02]. （原始內容存檔於2021-09-27）. 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.'

[Dupree-2] United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 6, 2010 [2022-02-02]. （原始內容存檔於2021-11-02）. To be sure, Supreme Court dicta, even while nonbinding, are still highly persuasive. (plurality opinion)

[black-3] 3.0 ^3.1 Black's Law Dictionary, p. 967 (5th ed. 1979).

[1]

[2]

[3]