Per Curiam Meaning in Indian Lawngocthanh
U.S. Supreme Court decisions are generally not per curiam.  Their decisions often take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual judges, who are then joined by other judges.  Unanimous and signed opinions are not taken into account according to the Curiam decisions, because only the court can officially appoint expert opinions according to Curiam.  Per curiam decisions are usually brief.  In modern practice, they are most often used in summary decisions rendered by the Court without full reasons or information.  The name is given at the beginning of the notice. One-line decisions per curiam are also rendered without consent or objection by a Supreme Court (a 4-4 decision) if the court has a vacancy. Per curiam decisions are usually brief and deal with issues that the court does not consider controversial. Murphy was tried with a one-sentence pro-curiam opinion: “The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is upheld for the reasons set forth in McGirt v. Oklahoma.” But Gorsuch was thrown into Murphy – and as a result, only four members of the McGirt majority remained. There had to be at least five judges to form a majority in Murphy.
(If the court had split 4-4 and there had been no majority, the per curiam decision would have concluded that the 10th District is confirmed “by an equally divided court.”) We can assume that the remaining four members of the McGirt majority remained: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. But who was the fifth voice? Thomas and Alito noticed their deviations from Murphy`s opinion per curiam, probably for the same reasons they disagreed in McGirt. So they went out. “A decision may be said to have been rendered per incuriam if the registration court acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own decision or if a lower court acted in ignorance of a decision of the registration court. As regards the judgments delivered per incuriam by that court, it cannot be said that it has `declared the law` on a particular subject if the relevant law has not been duly taken into account by that court in its decision. The Supreme Court of Canada uses “The Court” instead of per curiam. Notable exceptions to the usual features of a per curiam decision are the cases of the New York Times Co. v.
the United States, Bush vs. the United States. Gore and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. Although they were pro curiam, they had several similarities and dissenting opinions.   In Lord Godard, C.J. in Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson (1947) 2 All ER 193, it has been said: “If a case or law had not been brought to the attention of the court and the court had made the decision ignorantly or oblivious of the existence of jurisprudence or law, it would be a decision rendered per incuriam.” “A decision shall be given per incuriam where the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision on its part or of a court having coordinated jurisdiction to hear the case before it; in which case it must decide which case to follow (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co.
Ltd., 1944 KB 718 at 729: (1944) 2 All ER 293 at 300. Sir John Salmond, in his “Treatise on Jurisprudence”, set out well the circumstances in which a precedent can be treated as “per incuriam”. It is stated that a precedent is not binding if it was issued in disregard of a law or regulation having the force of law or delegated legislation. A per curiam decision is a decision rendered jointly by a panel or panel of judges of an appellate court. The decision is published as a decision of the court, the authorship of the decision is not indicated.  Sometimes per curiam also means an opinion written by the president of the court or the president but issued on behalf of the court as a whole.  The answer lies in a lot of hard work and distinguishing the judgment cited. Two legal doctrines that distinguish a precedent are sub-silentio and per incuriam, which are supposed to fall within the scope of this article. The United States uses per curiam mainly for non-controversial cases. However, Canada has used the term “The Court” for important and controversial cases to emphasize that the Court is unanimous. [ref. needed] Per curiam decisions are appointed by the court issuing the opinion, and these opinions are usually brief.
Opinions generally deal with matters that the issuing tribunal considers to be relatively uncontroversial. In Halsbury`s Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 297-98, § 578) per incuriam it was explained as follows: “139. We now consider it essential to examine the question of per incuriam raised by the learned counsel of the parties. In Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited (1994) All ER 293, the House of Lords stated that “Incuria” literally means “negligence”. In practice, per incuriam seems to mean per ignoratium. The English courts have developed this principle by relaxing the stare decisis rule. The “citable law” is avoided and ignored if it is rendered “in ignorance of a law or other binding authority.” The same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this court in the interpretation of article 141 of the Constitution, which enshrines the doctrine of jurisprudence as a question of law.
Most decisions of the Supreme Court and other U.S. courts are signed by individual judges. Even if the court makes a unanimous decision, it is not necessarily a matter of per curiam, and per curiam decisions are not necessarily unanimous. As a general rule, courts make decisions per curiam only on non-contentious issues.   Per curiam decisions are not always unanimous and uncontroversial. Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98 (2000) is one of the best-known Supreme Court cases with a pro curiam majority opinion, which also includes additional opinions. According to this comprehensive 2015 study of Supreme Court decisions, “the court unanimously ruled on 59.2% of pro-curiam decisions, compared to 36% of cases that resulted in a signed opinion.” For the 2016 term, the Supreme Court issued 9 pro-curiam decisions out of a total of 70 cases. That leaves Roberts and Kavanaugh. One or both of them must have voted with the majority – even if they strongly opposed McGirt. What for? Perhaps they thought McGirt was a binding precedent to follow.
Or one of them joined the decision per curiam as a “fifth” polite vote to create a majority.